Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

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.

But since they operate as a for profit business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.

 

[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.

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

Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight

 

[Skylar]

But since they operate as a for profit business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.

They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.

I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their

 

[Seawytch]

But since they operate as a for profit business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.

They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.

I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their

And as a for profit corporation, they can hire someone to do the work they don't want to. You'd "give this one to the ministers" because gays can go elsewhere? Blacks could eat elsewhere. Racist bigots had deeply held religious beliefs about blacks, that doesn't give businesses a right to discriminate.

If they want to be treated like a church, they can give up their worship of the dollar and become a church.

 

[Silhouette]

They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.

I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their

When will you be, as a member of the LGBT advocacy crew, expressing those EXACT views on primetime news interviews?

 

[Skylar]

When will you be, as a member of the LGBT advocacy crew, expressing those EXACT views on primetime news interviews?

Perhaps when I'm interviewed on prime time about my views on gay marriage and chapels. And those offers come up less often than you'd think.

 

[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?

Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight

It's one whacky world we live in!

 

[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.

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

Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight

It's one whacky world we live in!

While that might be the case, the fact is that some localities have expanded their "lists" of people protected by PA laws. Either get rid of ALL of them or quit bitching because in some places they protect gays on equal footing with race and religion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

But since they operate as a for profit business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.

They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.

I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their

And as a for profit corporation, they can hire someone to do the work they don't want to. You'd "give this one to the ministers" because gays can go elsewhere? Blacks could eat elsewhere. Racist bigots had deeply held religious beliefs about blacks, that doesn't give businesses a right to discriminate.

If they want to be treated like a church, they can give up their worship of the dollar and become a church.

Hey SeaBytch. I'd like to thank you for confirming in this thread that some faggots are self righteous , pushy, unfeeling, selfish pieces of shit.

See, here's the difference between YOU and ME.

I think you and your fellow gays are disgusting and mentally disturbed. But, I believe you should be left alone to do what you want.

You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.

It's enough to make me change my mind and hope you get NOTHING.

 

[Skylar]

You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.

And what 'something' is that?

 

[Silhouette]

You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.

And what 'something' is that?

Well one thing that might be is allowing the cult of LGBT unfettered new legal access [via marriage] to adopt orphaned kids...when none of them have spoken out against gay pride parades or the veneration of child-predator Harvey Milk as their "sexuality icon".

 

[Skylar]

Well one thing that might be is allowing the cult of LGBT unfettered new legal access [via marriage] to adopt orphaned kids...when none of them have spoken out against gay pride parades or the veneration of child-predator Harvey Milk as their "sexuality icon".

Smarter works with orphans? Really?

You might want to ask him if that's actually true.

 

[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?

Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight

It's one whacky world we live in!

While that might be the case, the fact is that some localities have expanded their "lists" of people protected by PA laws. Either get rid of ALL of them or quit bitching because in some places they protect gays on equal footing with race and religion.

Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal.

Talk to your State then. As most of the anti-discrimination laws are State laws. Ask them to remove all civil rights protections from every group.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dblack said:

"Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal."


Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Most public accommodation laws are from the State. These are constitutionally sound, as the State has vast reserve powers.

The federal basis of public accommodation laws are shady at best. As it uses the interstate commerce clause as justification for regulating intrastate commerce and citizen v. citizen interactions. Inter doesn't mean intra. And you'd be hard pressed to provide any credible argument that when the founders wrote 'interstate commerce' what they really meant was 'intrastate'. I take issue with that interpretation both linguistically and constitutionally.

Rights, as conceived by the founders, were the freedom from government interference. First, from Federal interference with the Bill of Rights. And then from State interference with the 14th. They had nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions. Rights were quite literally reinvented with the commerce clause jiggery pokery and reinvented whole in the 1960s. Granting the federal government a vast array of powers to regulate citizen v. citizen interactions under the auspice of radically re-imagined 'rights' that the constitution never articulates, the founders never once mention, and the government had never had before the Kennedy administration.

These new powers are sweeping, unarticulated, and defy both reason and the basic meaning of language. When interstate commerce can be re-imagined to 'really mean' intrastate commerce, then the words of the constitution have no particular meaning in practice.

 

[dblack]

dblack said:

"Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal."


Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

And and affront to the holy authority of the state!

I suspect you won't be happy until government is in charge of our employment in general, deciding who will work for whom and for how much.

 

[Seawytch]

So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?

Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed. Only one small portion would be impacted.

And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations. I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?

Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed. Only one small portion would be impacted.

And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations. I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."



>>>>

I said part of.