Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

Yeah... that's what I don't get.

You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.

Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.

Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?

If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.

Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination.

We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).

Well, no, they're targeting minorities that have fallen out of favor (racists, homophobes, sexists, etc..) for "behavior modification". But it sounds like we agree that it's not about equal rights. It's about special perks for specific classes of people. You realize this is the essence of corporatism, right?

 

[dblack]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

Does that seem right to you?

 

[Syriusly]

Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.

That's where we're getting into some muddier waters, constitutionally speaking. The Bill of Rights has from the beginning protected citizens from violatoin of their rights by the federal government. With the 14th amendment, citizens are protected from the violation of their rights by the State government. These are constitutionally rock solid principles.

The federal government preventing citizens from violating citizens civil rights? Per the conception of rights as understood by the founders, this would have been impossible. As rights were expressed as a prohibition against government interference with the actions of the individual. And have nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions.

The way the federal government extended its authority over citizen v citizen interactions was some pretty shady shit: the interstate commerce clause. Arguing in effect, that the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce gave it full jurisdictional authority over intrastate commerce. Which boggles the mind on a linguistic and constitutional level.

In my opinion, the Constitution doesn't authorize any such jurisdiction. And has no authority over intrastate commerce. And consequently, no authority over citizen v. citizen interactions unless those interactions are explicitly involved in interstate commerce.\

The States can do as they wish.

I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.

 

[Syriusly]

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

Yeah... that's what I don't get.

You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.

Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.

Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?

If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.

Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination.

We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).

Well, no, they're targeting minorities that have fallen out of favor (racists, homophobes, sexists, etc..) for "behavior modification". But it sounds like we agree that it's not about equal rights. It's about special perks for specific classes of people. You realize this is the essence of corporatism, right?

No- like pretty much every interpretation you have expressed- no.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

Does that seem right to you?

I don't have any problem with that at all. Since I have a firm grasp of history.

ITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate.

Against some people.

Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection of law.

I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.

 

[Skylar]

I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.

Which is why I prefaced my statement with 'In my opinion'.

You'd be hard pressed to make a credible argument that the authority to regulate interstate commerce means that the government has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Inter and intra are opposites. But they're used interchangeably by the federal government.

I take issue with that. Both constitutionally. And linguistically. If 'interstate commerce' has no meaning, why then did the founders use the term?

 

[Syriusly]

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate.

Against some people.

Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection of law.

I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.

Well I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that argues exactly that.

But until then you are stuck with discriminating against people without reference to race, color or religion.

 

[Syriusly]

I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.

Which is why I prefaced my statement with 'In my opinion'.

You'd be hard pressed to make a credible argument that the authority to regulate interstate commerce means that the government has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Inter and intra are opposites. But they're used interchangeably by the federal government.

I take issue with that. Both constitutionally. And linguistically. If 'interstate commerce' has no meaning, why then did the founders use the term?

I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate.

Against some people.

Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection of law.

I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.

Well I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that argues exactly that.

But until then you are stuck with discriminating against people without reference to race, color or religion.

Oh, I am firmly of the belief that people who get caught by these laws are stupid.

"Oh, yes I'd love to bake your gay wedding cake for you, but I am booked for next 9 months, so sorry"

done and done.

 

[Skylar]

I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.

And that's why I contrasted it with the constitutional basis of the Bill of Rights applying to the Federal Government and the Federal government's authority to protect rights from abuse by the States under the 14th amendment. That's rock solid, constitutionally.

The constitutionality of the Federal Government protecting the rights of citizens from other citizens is muddy at best. And defies the meaning of 'interstate' and 'rights' at worst.

I try to be reasonable in my assessment of arguments. And the conservatives have a point on this one. I'd be disingenuous not to acknowledge that with my recognition of this fact.

 

[Seawytch]

For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.

 

[dblack]

For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.

Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?

 

[Jarlaxle]

For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.

Now THAT is stupid!

 

[Skylar]

Seems there are some gray zones:

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, are asking a federal judge to temporarily bar the city from enforcing a local ordinance that bans discrimination tied to sexual orientation in businesses that are used by the public, their attorney said on Monday.

The couple, both ordained Christian ministers, say that under the ordinance, they could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine each time they decline to wed same-sex couples in line with their religious beliefs.

"The government has no business compelling ministers to violate their beliefs and break their ordination vows or risk escalating jail time and fines," said the Knapps' attorney, Jeremy Tedesco


Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News

There is one relevant caveat:

The lawsuit said the city contends that because the chapel is not a church, it is not exempt from the ordinance and must afford gays the same rights as other couples seeking to wed....

...The Knapps said in the lawsuit filed on Friday in U.S. District Court that their business was formed as an avenue to exercise their religious beliefs, which include helping people "create, celebrate and build lifetime, monogamous one-man one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible."

Their chapel, technically a for-profit corporation, has hosted roughly 35,000 weddings since opening in 1989.

Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News

Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.

 

[Silhouette]

Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.

When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?

 

[dblack]

For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.

Now THAT is stupid!

But that's the vector of this kind of legal reasoning. Ultimately, all of our preferences and personal decisions are the purview of government oversight.

 

[Syriusly]

I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.

And that's why I contrasted it with the constitutional basis of the Bill of Rights applying to the Federal Government and the Federal government's authority to protect rights from abuse by the States under the 14th amendment. That's rock solid, constitutionally.

The constitutionality of the Federal Government protecting the rights of citizens from other citizens is muddy at best. And defies the meaning of 'interstate' and 'rights' at worst.

I try to be reasonable in my assessment of arguments. And the conservatives have a point on this one. I'd be disingenuous not to acknowledge that with my recognition of this fact.

Well to be fair- Conservatives- most Conservatives- don't have a problem with the interstate commerce provis

Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.

When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?

What makes you think that Skylar is a representative of the LGBT movement?

 

[Skylar]

Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.

When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?

Feel free to pass them along. You have my full permission to quote me or appropriate the quote as your own.

 

[Syriusly]

Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.

When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?

Feel free to pass them along. You have my full permission to quote me or appropriate the quote as your own.

Quoting you might make for the most lucid posts Sil ever makes.