Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[esthermoon]

Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom

See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are. She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...

I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.

Let's ask.

ESTHERMOON,

#1 Do you think religious organizations that have no problems with same-sex couples should be allowed to perform Religious Marriages for these couples?

#2 DO you think that same-sex couple should be allowed to civilly marry under the law (which has nothing to do with religious marriage as civil marriage a function of law)?


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Hi WorldWatcher
Thanks for your questions and sorry if I couldn't answer sooner!

1) If their doctrine says there is no problem with homosexuality I think that religious organizations can be allowed to perform marriages for gay or lesbian couples;

2) I think it depends. In some countries same sex marriage is ok, in other countries (due to their culture) is not possible and maybe could be dangerous for society. For example here in Vietnam there's neither same sex marriage nor civil union. And maybe it's a good decision because Vietnamese culture thinks homosexuality is not good at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?

Not common but here are three stories one each from Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

"A southern Ohio pastor has refused to allow his church to be used for an interracial wedding, forcing the couple to move the ceremony." (Interracial Couple Spurned)

"A small Appalachian church in Kentucky is being called racist for passing a vote that banned interracial couples from the church." (Church Bans Interracial Couples)

"Because of the fact that we were black, some of the members of the congregation had got upset and decided that no black couple would ever be married at that church," Charles Wilson told CNN on Sunday night. (Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi - CNN.com)​

>>>>

 

[kaz]

I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.

So churches should be instruments of government policy. That is while you want businesses to implement government social policy. And the word "Marxist" bothers you again ... why ???

 

[Silhouette]

Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?

Not common but here are three stories one each from Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

"A southern Ohio pastor has refused to allow his church to be used for an interracial wedding, forcing the couple to move the ceremony." (Interracial Couple Spurned)​

What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.

 

[mdk]

What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.

The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.

 

[Silhouette]

What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.

The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.

We all know the premise behind this thread mdk. Play dumb as you like. The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"

See the 1st Amendment for details. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected. And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)

 

[mdk]

What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.

The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.

We all know the premise behind this thread mdk. Play dumb as you like. The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"

See the 1st Amendment for details. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected. And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)

And by real question you mean the one you pulled sideways out of ass. Keep lying to yourself, though. It's funny watching you still fall apart over queers getting married.

 

[WillReadmore]

What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.

The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.

We all know the premise behind this thread mdk. Play dumb as you like. The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"

See the 1st Amendment for details. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected. And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

 

[basquebromance]

i will marry Milo wherever I want, i don't need to do it in a church.

 

[WillReadmore]

i will marry Milo wherever I want, i don't need to do it in a church.

There certainly are many churches that will marry couples who happen to be of the same gender.

On the other hand ...

My daughter asked my brother to officiate her marriage. He filed the state papers that allow anyone to do so, and the wedding was really terrific, with continuing meaning added by my brother's contribution.

 

[Silhouette]

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections. Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections. Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)

 

[WillReadmore]

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections. Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections. Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)

I don't know why it would get that far.

For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.

For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.

And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense. You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Alright motherfuckers time for a change of pace.

I say fuck it. Force churches to perform gay weddings, and ONLY gay weddings!!! It's time!

 

[Silhouette]

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections. Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections. Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)

I don't know why it would get that far.

For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.

For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.

And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense. You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.

Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that. It found in favor of Ivy Tech. You might want to read that when you get a minute. And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society". Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.

And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason. But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection). There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution. Not even remotely insinuated. Behaviors have to be specified as to protections. Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections. I think you can see where this would lead to problems..

And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016). Learn the difference. Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes). The other is called "The US Constitution". Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others". It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas). Like weed. In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.

Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it. That's right. Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject. The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either. Some states allow marriage at 16. Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16? No. They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".

 

[WillReadmore]

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections. Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections. Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)

I don't know why it would get that far.

For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.

For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.

And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense. You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.

Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that. It found in favor of Ivy Tech. You might want to read that when you get a minute. And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society". Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.

And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason. But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection). There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution. Not even remotely insinuated. Behaviors have to be specified as to protections. Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections. I think you can see where this would lead to problems..

And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016). Learn the difference. Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes). The other is called "The US Constitution". Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others". It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas). Like weed. In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.

Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it. That's right. Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject. The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either. Some states allow marriage at 16. Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16? No. They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".

That is a lower court employment case, not a public accommodation case. And, it is being challenged.

Do you really think you can fire people for being same sex oriented?

 

[WorldWatcher]

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.

So how'd that work for Newman v. Piggie Park claiming First amendment not to serve black people.

Or Elane Photography claiming First Amendment protections for not having to serve gays.


>>>>

 

[WillReadmore]

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?

PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections. Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections. Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)

I don't know why it would get that far.

For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.

For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.

And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense. You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.

Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that. It found in favor of Ivy Tech. You might want to read that when you get a minute. And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society". Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.

And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason. But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection). There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution. Not even remotely insinuated. Behaviors have to be specified as to protections. Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections. I think you can see where this would lead to problems..

And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016). Learn the difference. Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes). The other is called "The US Constitution". Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others". It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas). Like weed. In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.

Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it. That's right. Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject. The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either. Some states allow marriage at 16. Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16? No. They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".

Read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. He states that it ends the last justificatiin for denying marriage equality.

And, your "behavior" stuff is total nonsense. First of all, sexual orientation is not a "behavior". Nobody chooses to be same sex oriented any more than anyone chose to be attracted to the oposite sex.

Beyond that, the behaviors that scare you are not limited to same sex couples.

Also, serving someone in your business is not a promotion of anything.

And, no, it is not anything at all like weed. Using weed is a choice. And, weed is totally illegal by US law regardless of what any state says.

 

[Silhouette]

Scalia was wrong about that. Marriage providing a vital mother and father for children is the last legitimate objection to gay marriage.

That is a lower court employment case, not a public accommodation case. And, it is being challenged.

Do you really think you can fire people for being same sex oriented?

No. Not unless they're making sexual advances on any of their coworkers. But marriage involves other people. Specifically the people it was created for over 1,000 years ago: children. Until 2015, enticement to marriage (state benefits) served as a remedy to motherless or fatherless children. Now it's a free for all with no meaning for children as to that guarantee. States are now forced to entice people to legally bind children away from either a mother or father for life.

Speaking of pending challenges...

Feel free to start a thread on employment law and homosexuals. Hively v Ivy Tech is important not for what spurred it, but instead for what it found: that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not and did not imply sexual behaviors had special rights.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?

Nowhere I know of. And, race is an inborn trait. .

And 'an inborn' trait is makes it not okay for a Church to discriminate?

LOL.

Churches can and do discriminate against couples for all sorts of reasons- because they are the wrong faith(Catholics will not marry Jews), because they are the wrong color Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi - CNN.com
because they are inter-racial Interracial Couple Banned From Kentucky Church | The Huffington Post

Or because they are the wrong sexual gender combination.

And its perfectly legal for churches to discriminate against any of them.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?

Christians can't be required to abet behaviors strictly forbidden in the Bible's New Testament.

The New Testament tells Christians to obey the law- it never tells Christians that they can't sell a cake to gays.