Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?

Ask away....

I don't expect an answer. Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answering a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate. It is key to understanding your position. You have argued that LGBTs are equal to race and religions. Well your ilk quietly assents that you aren't a race of people. Obviously, because the people who do gay sex come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Just like a religion and its followers. Yet you aren't like a religion either. Or at least you're not admitting you are. You keep dodging the question because if you completed your comparison to LGBT "as equal to protection for religions" you'd have to admit it's behavioral and has a dogma, with evangelizing and all the rest.

And what do you know? That's EXACTLY how LGBT edicts behave. No one is allowed to denounce "The Rules". No one is allowed to defect [laws invading personally-chosen therapy by minors in CA and NJ]. Heretics are labelled with derogatory associative names "Anne Heche". And aggressive evangelizing, particularly to youth, is practiced daily ["bi-curious" events for youth, Kevin Jennings' education platform for sex ed in schools]

You are avoiding answer the question because you know that once your movement is exposed as a cult/religion, it will come under that scrutiny. And that's something you want to avoid at least until it becomes legally-entrenched via the nice little attrition-fodder that SCOTUS has accomodated you with...and at least until you've used that legal wedge to advance lawsuits on adoption agencies. Get them young, convert their minds. Pretty soon there will be no conservatives left to blockade your access to those young...er...minds...

And hence the reason conservative Justices helped give a leg up to the suicide of their own political party with just a generation or two. How may kids raised in this cult will support conservative values in two or three decades? Scant few I'd imagine. And if they dare...well....you've seen what happens to people who brave against the neo-dogma *shudder*... Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dblack]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

 

[Skylar]

I don't expect an answer.

You've already gotten one.

Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answer a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate. It is key to understanding your position. You have argued that LGBTs are equal to race and religions.

I've argued that LGBT folks are protected, as Romer V. Evans makes clear. You may disagree. The USSC doesn't. The decision was 6 to 3. And it was written by Mr. Swing Voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. .....

......The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271" 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Romer V. Evans
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

And gay marriage bans are so much worse. As it does burden a fundamental right: the right to marry. It also targets a specific group: gays and lesbians. And no rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Which might explain the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents in the federal courts.

 

[Skylar]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

 

[Silhouette]

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

Yes, the catholic religion opens its doors to every sinner who walks the earth. And folks, that's all of us. So yes, they are a public accomodation. Their orphanages are too. And this is where the rubber is going to meet the road in legal debate..

Children's rights to protection vs the parade carnival with 0% dissent trying to access them legally to adopt them. Who has dominant rights? That will be the quesiton before the People and the Courts.

Europe has already resolved that question in favor of children when a normal married couple sported a newly-amputated man calling himself lately a "lesbian" an his/her "lesbian wife" sued for rights to adopt because the man now missing his testicles, couldn't impregnant his/her lesbian wife.

Gee, I wonder why the courts would find they didn't have the right to marry/adopt?:

European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet. Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw". Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?

There is no more crucially important issue to ANY culture, I don't care where you are, than the fate and welfare of its children. This is particularly true in Europe.

Paris France, Winter 2014:

 

[Skylar]

These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet. Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw". Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?

Or...and this seems far more likely.....you're again talking out of your ass regarding a topic you know nothing about, projecting your beliefs onto people you've never met.

And predictably, you're ramping up the hysteria of your argument as your claims collapse. Now pretending that unless we agree with you, the very survival of our nation is at stake, our allies will abandon us and our society will collapse.

Take a seat on your fainting couch, chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Its gonna be okay.

 

[dblack]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?

Ask away....

I don't expect an answer. Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answering a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate. m

No- I am ignoring your idiotic questions.

And sticking to the topic- something you change whenever you can't respond- so back to my original response

Meanwhile....as I said before

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

And the courts have been finding that laws preventing two people of the same gender from marrying do not pass Constitutional muster- hence as Windsor recognized Subject to certain constitutional guarantees - State laws that are unconstitutional can be addressed by the Federal government.

If you want to discuss my actual post- rather than trying to switch topics, I will be glad to respond with an appropriate response.

 

[Syriusly]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

As I have said before- the only ones suggesting that churches should or will be required to marry ANY couple against Church doctrine are Conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.

Church services are by definition a practice of religion- and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Baking cakes are not a practice of religion- unless they are baked by- and for the Church.

 

[dblack]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

 

[dblack]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.

Church services are by definition a practice of religion- and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Baking cakes are not a practice of religion- unless they are baked by- and for the Church.

That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?

 

[Syriusly]

These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet. Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw". Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?

There is no more crucially important issue to ANY culture, I don't care where you are, than the fate and welfare of its children. This is particularly true in Europe.

/QUOTE]

'last bastion of allies'?

Gay Marriage- Europe:

Currently 24 of the 50 countries and 4 of the 6 dependent territories in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eleven European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,[nb 2] Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.[nb 3] An additional thirteen countries have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation, as do four dependent territories. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen's partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

The constitutions of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, banning same-sex marriage.

Congradulations! You are allied with Belarus- the most corrupt country in Europe!

 

[Syriusly]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

 

[Skylar]

How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.

Because free practice of religion is a guaranteed right. And the discriminatory nature of religion is intrinsic to its free practice. It would be like saying you have the right to free speech....but you can't use language. Language is intrinsic to the exercise of the right. Just as discrimination is intrinsic to the exercise of religion.

 

[Skylar]

That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?

Nope. As the right to free practice of religion is balanced with rights possessed by other people. The right to life, for example.

 

[dblack]

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

 

[dblack]

That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?

Nope. As the right to free practice of religion is balanced with rights possessed by other people. The right to life, for example.

Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?

 

[Syriusly]

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.