Pro-Christian Legislation vs. Anti-Christian Legislation

[del]

You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.

For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

liar. prove it or eat shit.

 

[Evangelical]

For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

liar. prove it or eat shit.

Scholars' Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

New Jersey stripped state property tax exemption from a church because they would not have a gay marriage held at their pavilion.

Like I said just listen to Dr. Albert Mohler he has a bunch of actual examples.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/237786.aspx

 

[AllieBaba]

Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accept Homosexual Foster Parents
(This is in Australia)

"The Uniting Church in Australia has been told by the New South Wales (NSW) Administrative Decisions Tribunal that its foster care agencies, including Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Care, against whom the original case was brought, cannot refuse to accept homosexuals as foster carers.

Wesley Dalmar (part of Wesley Mission) has been ordered to pay $5,000 to each of the two homosexuals who brought the case against them for not accepting them as foster carers."
OpenHeaven.com - Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accepted Homosexual Foster Parents

"Under an agreement with New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights, eHarmony will create a same-sex dating Web site — "Compatible Partners" — and pay $50,000 in administrative costs.

Eric McKinley, who filed a "discrimination" complaint against eHarmony three years ago, gets $5,000 under the settlement.

The new site and eHarmony will maintain individual matching pools and registration information. As a result, users of the two sites cannot be paired.

So-called "nondiscrimination" laws — like the one in play in New Jersey — could force more businesses like eHarmony to cave to the gay agenda."
CitizenLink: eHarmony Forced to Match Homosexual Couples

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess Del has to eat shit now.

 

[Immanuel]

You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.

For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

I refuse to listen to a 40 minute program, but are you claiming that Albert Mohler, Jr. speaks for most Evangelical Christians? Does that mean Pat Robertson speaks for me too? Does that mean that if I don't subscribe to the points that Albert Mohler, Jr. and Pat Robertson adhere to, then I am not a Christian?

Does Sean Hannity speak for me because I am conservative? How about Rush?

Immie

 

[Evangelical]

For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

I refuse to listen to a 40 minute program, but are you claiming that Albert Mohler, Jr. speaks for most Evangelical Christians? Does that mean Pat Robertson speaks for me too? Does that mean that if I don't subscribe to the points that Albert Mohler, Jr. and Pat Robertson adhere to, then I am not a Christian?

Does Sean Hannity speak for me because I am conservative? How about Rush?

Immie

I said what Dr. Albert Mohler says speaks for most evangelicals concerning what the ARGUMENT against same sex marriage is. And I am right.

 

[del]

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

liar. prove it or eat shit.

Scholars' Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

New Jersey stripped state property tax exemption from a church because they would not have a gay marriage held at their pavilion.

Like I said just listen to Dr. Albert Mohler he has a bunch of actual examples.

Methodists: No Civil Unions; N.J. Retaliates - U.S. - CBN News

i'd prefer something reality based if it's not too much trouble.

 

[Evangelical]

liar. prove it or eat shit.

Scholars' Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

New Jersey stripped state property tax exemption from a church because they would not have a gay marriage held at their pavilion.

Like I said just listen to Dr. Albert Mohler he has a bunch of actual examples.

Methodists: No Civil Unions; N.J. Retaliates - U.S. - CBN News

i'd prefer something reality based if it's not too much trouble.

What? New Jersey removed tax exemption from a church group because they wouldn't marry homosexuals.

How is that not reality based?

 

[Immanuel]

New Jersey stripped state property tax exemption from a church because they would not have a gay marriage held at their pavilion.

If I remember correctly in that case, it was not a church that had its tax exempt status removed but rather a location that was rented out for purposes of weddings, graduations etc. It was not directly affiliated with a church, but had claimed tax exempt status as a church.

Here is the article on the subject:

Gay group may appeal bias decision in New Jersey | Chicago Free Press

The state’s leading gay rights group wants to appeal a decision by New Jersey environmental officials stripping a Methodist church group of tax exemption for part of the Ocean Grove boardwalk.

Garden State Equality feels the decision by state Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson does not go far enough in penalizing the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association for refusing to let same-sex couples hold civil union ceremonies in a boardwalk pavilion where heterosexual couples are allowed to wed.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but my understanding was that the owners of the boardwalk was not a church therefore not entitled to tax exempt status.

Immie

 

[Evangelical]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

 

[Immanuel]

I said what Dr. Albert Mohler says speaks for most evangelicals concerning what the ARGUMENT against same sex marriage is. And I am right.

I don't think you can back up that statement. Show me proof that most evangelical Christians of which I am one agree with Dr. Mohler. I might agree that most Christians oppose same sex marriage, but I do not agree that it is for the reasons that Dr. Mohler puts up. I for one am not in the least concerned about the State requiring my Church to accept and/or marry homosexuals nor am I concerned that the state will require my church to hire anyone homosexual or not. I am beginning to think that maybe it is you that is being lied to.

I'll wait for your proof.

Marriage is a religious Rite and thus the State should have nothing to do with it either pro or con.

Let the State issue "civil union contracts" but get out of the marriage business, where it does not belong, altogether.

Immie

 

[tigerbob]

You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.

For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

I don't know whether that's representative of most evangelical views or not, and even if it is, not all Christians are evangelists.

Irrespective, churches should not be forced to employ someone whose lifestyle openly flouts the beliefs of the religion in question. At the same time, gays shouldn't have narrower legal rights just because some members of certain religious groups are religiously offended by their lifestyle.

The "immoral activities" point I'm going to leave alone. One person's morality is another's repression.

 

[Immanuel]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

It was not a church. What part of that do you not understand?

It would be like me and a few of my Lutheran friends opening up a bar that only served Lutheran beverages (that would be beer for anyone who doesn't know what a Lutheran beverage is) to Lutherans and claiming tax exempt states simply because we are Lutheran. Hmmm! Maybe I will give that a shot.

Immie

 

[del]

I guess Del has to eat shit now.

it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Representative of most Evangelical views.

It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.

*eye roll* That's just lame. Sorry, but the churches are not forced into marrying anyone and some have denied performing the rights to couples not in their congregation legally and no one has complained, they just go to someone who is already willing or a Justice of the Peace which is not religiously aligned.

I didn't say they were forced to marry someone, I said they were forced to hire homosexuals because in gay marriage states, where homosexuals are publicly gay through marriage, a church can single them out for discrimination employment wise.

You should really listen to Dr. Albert Mohler instead of thinking you know what the issue really is...the liberals have lied to you.

So, you are for discrimination ....

 

[tigerbob]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

What a defensive response.

You posted a point, supported by evidence. Immie posted equally well documented evidence that called your point into question. You suddenly stopped debating and got all pissy. I wonder why....

 

[del]

Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accept Homosexual Foster Parents
(This is in Australia)

"The Uniting Church in Australia has been told by the New South Wales (NSW) Administrative Decisions Tribunal that its foster care agencies, including Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Care, against whom the original case was brought, cannot refuse to accept homosexuals as foster carers.

Wesley Dalmar (part of Wesley Mission) has been ordered to pay $5,000 to each of the two homosexuals who brought the case against them for not accepting them as foster carers."
OpenHeaven.com - Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accepted Homosexual Foster Parents

"Under an agreement with New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights, eHarmony will create a same-sex dating Web site — "Compatible Partners" — and pay $50,000 in administrative costs.

Eric McKinley, who filed a "discrimination" complaint against eHarmony three years ago, gets $5,000 under the settlement.

The new site and eHarmony will maintain individual matching pools and registration information. As a result, users of the two sites cannot be paired.

So-called "nondiscrimination" laws — like the one in play in New Jersey — could force more businesses like eHarmony to cave to the gay agenda."
CitizenLink: eHarmony Forced to Match Homosexual Couples

eharmony ain't a church, and australia is a sovereign nation that is not the u.s.

good effort, though.
for you

 

[del]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

no, you're doing enough for all of us. they're charging them $175/yr for a space that they rent out for public events. they probably should have been taxed for the space all along. get back to me when something actually justifies your bullshit.

 

[Evangelical]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

no, you're doing enough for all of us. they're charging them $175/yr for a space that they rent out for public events. they probably should have been taxed for the space all along. get back to me when something actually justifies your bullshit.

Sorry but you cannot justify a breech of the Constitution or its principles based on the amount of the infraction.

 

[del]

Was the reason the tax exemption removed because a church refused to allow a gay wedding there or not?

If yes, then the particulars don't matter, you can also rationalize the holocaust if you'd like to proceed to make an ass of yourself.

no, you're doing enough for all of us. they're charging them $175/yr for a space that they rent out for public events. they probably should have been taxed for the space all along. get back to me when something actually justifies your bullshit.

Sorry but you cannot justify a breech of the Constitution or its principles based on the amount of the infraction.

i must have missed the exact amendment that justifies discriminatory boardwalk rentals. could you be an angel and post a link?