Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

 

[Skylar]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?

Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.

Speed it up a little.

 

[dblack]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?

Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.

Speed it up a little.

I don't waste any of your time. You do that yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?

Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.

Speed it up a little.

I don't waste any of your time. You do.

Well I am talking to you. And I already know your entire script. So.....you may have a point.

 

[dblack]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?

Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.

Speed it up a little.

I don't waste any of your time. You do.

Well I am talking to you. And I already know your entire script. So.....you may have a point.

Yet you can't resist. Why is that?

 

[IvantheGreat]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

 

[Skylar]

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Churches are inherently discriminatory. Its the nature of religion. Businesses, not so much.

Plus, from a practical perspective racial discrimination and the like is just bad for the economy. In our society, commerce is how goods and services are distributed. Racial discrimination and the like limit access to those goods and services, make them less efficient to distribute, and limit entrepreneurial opportunities.

Its just bad business.

Plus States have the implicit authority over intrastate commerce. And absolutely have the authority to establish minimum codes of conduct for those who wish to do business within their jurisdiction.

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

 

[Skylar]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.

So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order.

The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes.

But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.

And per your view on the constitution, should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.

What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.

 

[dblack]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.

So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order.

The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes.

But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.

And per your view on the constitution, should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.

What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.

Hehe.... backpedalling for the win!

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..

Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September... You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise. Homosexuals aren't a race of people. They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.

 

[Skylar]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.

So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order.

The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes.

But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.

And per your view on the constitution, should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.

What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.

Hehe.... backpedalling for the win!

Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.

 

[Silhouette]

Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"

 

[Skylar]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..

Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...

No court has ever found that Kim Davis has the right to use the State to impose her religious views on people who don't share them. Every court to hear her case has found that she is in violation of the constitution.

So you're stuck with no constitutional violation of Kim's rights. While Kim violates other people's rights. Are you starting to see why your pseudo-legal claims have nothing to do with any legal outcome.

Um, ever?

You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise. Homosexuals aren't a race of people. They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.

A strawman that might have some relevance if I'd argued that gays are a race. Which I never did.

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

 

[Skylar]

Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"

So...churchs are tax exempt. Does that mean that people are too?

If they are the same, why is one tax exempt but the other not? Is it possible that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about....and are instead offering us your imagination in place of actual legal precedent?

 

[IvantheGreat]

Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.

The two clearly aren't the same.

Yes, they aren't. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)

Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..

Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September... You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise. Homosexuals aren't a race of people. They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.

Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read St. Mark's words of Jesus and St. Paul's counsel. We are to obey authority, and the sin if any rests on the authorities not the Christian. Sil is only a nominal Christian if that, so understand she does not grasp Christian teaching.

 

[Skylar]

Read St. Mark's words of Jesus and St. Paul's counsel. We are to obey authority, and the sin if any rests on the authorities not the Christian. Sil is only a nominal Christian if that, so understand she does not grasp Christian teaching.

And unburdened by reality, just makes scriptures up. You know the passage in Jude 1 that condemns gay marriage and relegates any cake maker to hell if they bake for one?

Yeah, me neither. But Sil's read it anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?

God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway. God hates the sin, not the sinner. Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.

 

[IvantheGreat]

Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?

God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway. God hates the sin, not the sinner. Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.

Oh, so what you're saying is that you don't have to hate someone to banish them to eternal suffering? Humans, as flawed as we are, don't even wish that on people who cross us on minor things, and usually not when someone majorly offends us. Yet God, a being of infinite love, would damn someone without a second thought because of love?