Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is. Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more, and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.

You didn't answer the question. Should Churches be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples?

You can't pick and chose. Either you support government dictating to Churches or you don't. There is no middle ground, there is only one conservative answer.

It’s not a matter of ‘should,’ they currently are allowed.

Private organizations have the First Amendment right to exclude whomever they wish for whatever hateful, ignorant reason (BSA v. Dale (2000)).

 

[Peach]

Those churches will not be Christian. There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.

Actually, you mean just the opposite.

The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.

By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?

Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church

He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

Actually that's incorrect.
"Congress shall make now respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting of the free expression thereof"..
In many places, for reasons based on religion, laws are established that prohibit certain activities. Such as gambling, shopping, certain kinds of work on certain days of the week, the sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages, outdoor activities.
For example....
IN Bergen county NJ, malls department stores, home improvement stores cannot open on Sundays
In North Carolina, it is illegal to fish and hunt on Sunday.
In hundreds of counties across the country, alcohol sales are illegal 24/365.
In many others, on premise liquor service is illegal.
In about 20 states, most forms of gambling are illegal.
Each instance mentioned above, these laws are established due to religious considerations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

I thought this was a serious thread. Looks like you are trolling.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Since you opened the door to the stupid dept....Yes. Churches can basically do whatever they wish.
There are African Methodist Evangelical( AME) in which only blacks are welcome.
Synagogues are for Jewish people only.
Mosques exclude non Muslims.
In fact private individuals and their organizations are free to admit or ban anyone who they see fit.
I cannot simply walk into a private club of any kind and take part in the club activities.
In essence non members are excluded based on the practice of self determination which is a form of discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

I thought this was a serious thread. Looks like you are trolling.

They CAN discriminate against racial minorities if they wish to, you know.

 

[Rozman]

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?

Did you pop the question?
And did he say yes?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.

England has royally screwed itself.
By mandating so called enlightened society, the country is well l on its way to trouble.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Yes. Seek to destroy that which you fear.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.

England has royally screwed itself.
By mandating so called enlightened society, the country is well l on its way to trouble.

England's main handicap in regard to such matters is a lack of a written constitution.

 

[Unkotare]

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, they shouldn't - and won't - be forced to accommodate you.

That's cool ...

So you'll have to take your business elsewhere, doughboy.

 

[Unkotare]

Government should not be involved in marriage at all.

There has to be some legal oversight of contracts or they become meaningless.

Legal oversight of contracts as contracts no different from any partnership or incorporation contract in existence out there. That way we can have group marriages too.

If society accepts such contracts and wishes to see them enshrined in law, I suppose.

 

[jillian]

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. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that.

you're not really wondering that, are you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that.

you're not really wondering that, are you?

Excellent point. They won't be, but pretending they will be is the strawman that the anti-gay rights crowd has constructed in lieu of a good argument against same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Yes. Seek to destroy that which you fear.

Religion seeks to destroy mortality.

 

[Unkotare]

This thread is a indication of why Muslim extremist hate us. Don't mess with religion. .

That's not why extremists hate us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is. Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more, and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.

Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality. You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.

 

[Redfish]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is. Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more, and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.

Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality. You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.

are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition? If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.

 

[jillian]

Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is. Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more, and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.

Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality. You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.

are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition? If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.

you giving a rat's patoot about others' sexuality is far more abnormal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Countries like France have it right. France only recognizes civil marriages performed by certain civil authorities;

religious marriages are optional and only ceremonial.