Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Sky Dancer]

The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.

 

[Immanuel]

The truth was that Immie got it wrong. The lesbian couple was not suing the church. Hate me all you want.

Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.

It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.

Immie

The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.

What I said earlier was that they sued the church for not renting them the pavilion on religious grounds. I did not say they sued them for refusing marrying them. I said they did not rent them their facilities and the reason for that was on religious grounds.

Where do you think I said anything differently?

And again, this only goes to prove that first amendment rights can be taken away by the courts.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.

The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.

Immie

The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.

The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.

Yeah, I know that about pro-life extremists. I'm no fan of them either and they are supposedly on my side of the issue.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.

It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.

Immie

The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.

What I said earlier was that they sued the church for not renting them the pavilion on religious grounds. I did not say they sued them for refusing marrying them. I said they did not rent them their facilities and the reason for that was on religious grounds.

Where do you think I said anything differently?

And again, this only goes to prove that first amendment rights can be taken away by the courts.

Immie

Don't worry Immie. You've got your good friends the Alliance Defense Fund on your side.


Inspired by the organizing successes of early anti-gay crusaders like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fundamentalist political activists have turned the anti-gay movement into a virtual industry over the last three decades.

Below are profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups. Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk.


Alliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
American Vision*
Chalcedon Foundation*
Christian Action Network
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute*
Focus on the Family
Summit Ministries
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...t/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army

 

[Immanuel]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.

The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.

Immie

The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.

The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.

The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.

Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.

If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.

The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.

Immie

The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.

The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.

The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.

Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.

If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.

Immie

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

 

[Immanuel]

The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.

No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.

I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.

The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.

Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.

Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.

Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.

No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.

I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.

The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.

Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.

Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.

Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.

Immie

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qET9cxff_Y]YouTube - ‪BLASPHEMY NEWS UPDATE: Woman With Backbone Sues Her Gay-Affirming Church For Return of Tithes‬‎[/ame]

 

[Sky Dancer]

YouTube - ‪BLASPHEMY NEWS UPDATE: Woman With Backbone Sues Her Gay-Affirming Church For Return of Tithes‬‎

Did she win? Or did the Church win?

 

[Immanuel]

The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.

The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.

The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.

Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.

If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.

Immie

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.

No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.

I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.

The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.

Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.

Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.

Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.

Immie

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

They were extremists who felt the church owed them.

They were wrong.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.

Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.

If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.

Immie

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

The couple were discriminated against by a facility that had been used for years by the public. Many of the townspeople didn't even know about it's church ties. They had every right to ask to use the facility and they were completely humiliated when they were refused on religous grounds. A pastor married them.

These women are NOT extremists. They are not enemies of your church or you, Immie.

 

[eots]

YouTube - ‪BLASPHEMY NEWS UPDATE: Woman With Backbone Sues Her Gay-Affirming Church For Return of Tithes‬‎

Did she win? Or did the Church win?

she has since dropped the lawsuit

 

[Immanuel]

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

The couple were discriminated against by a facility that had been used for years by the public. Many of the townspeople didn't even know about it's church ties. They had every right to ask to use the facility.

These women are NOT extremists. They are not enemies of your church or you, Immie.

They had every right to ask. They had no right to demand.

By demanding, they become extremists.

I didn't say that they were my enemy. I simply think they are wrong for demanding that any business serve them even though had I been the manager, there never would have been a question.

I used to work for a Jewish Community Center in California. We had some nice grounds and a pool. It was a community center not a church. It never came up, but I do not believe that if a Christian were to ask to rent the facilities for a Christian Wedding, that they would have rented the facilities to them. That is the community center's right. It is any business owner's right as long as they are not discriminating on the grounds of a protected status.

Immie

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENyKqrswYM&feature=related]YouTube - ‪An Atheist Reads the Bible - 11 - Marriage‬‎[/ame]

 

[THE LIGHT]

The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.

What I said earlier was that they sued the church for not renting them the pavilion on religious grounds. I did not say they sued them for refusing marrying them. I said they did not rent them their facilities and the reason for that was on religious grounds.

Where do you think I said anything differently?

And again, this only goes to prove that first amendment rights can be taken away by the courts.

Immie

Don't worry Immie. You've got your good friends the Alliance Defense Fund on your side.


Inspired by the organizing successes of early anti-gay crusaders like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fundamentalist political activists have turned the anti-gay movement into a virtual industry over the last three decades.

Below are profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups. Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk.


Alliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
American Vision*
Chalcedon Foundation*
Christian Action Network
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute*
Focus on the Family
Summit Ministries
Traditional Values Coalition
'A Mighty Army' | Southern Poverty Law Center

Preserving Marraige is hardly anti-gay. However, vandalizing churches, however, IS anti-Christian.

Church vandalism heats up gay marriage debate | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Like I have said in the other thread. Let's make it fair for both sides and do away with government sponsored marriage altogether. Then both sides can do whatever they so choose. I'm not here to hold them back from doing what they want to do and I don't think I should be hated and vandalized just because someone can't piss all over the term marriage.

 

[Madeline]

The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.

Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.

If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.

Immie

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

Immie, there is a very long line of decisions holding that a "public accommodation" business cannot discriminate. Some rely on the 14th Amendment, others on the Interstate Commerce Clause. What the church in NJ did was wrong, or at least they did it wrong. So they got tagged. Big deal.

Your "fear of extremists" regretfully reminds me of the plea to moderate blacks to "wait, don't try and change things so fast" back in the day. I'm sorry, but it does seem as if it is a plea to GLBT people -- please don't intrude.

And here's the problem. You have no right that does not impair your neighbor's. None. The only way GLBT people can "avoid intruding" is to disappear...back into the closet. Since that will never happen, and the days in which it did saw so much terrible suffering, seems to me it is time to man up and adapt, Immie.

It ain't heterosexual-only world in the US anymore. People who want to raise children, watch tv, listen to music, use public facilities, etc. without ever once being reminded that some folks are GLBT are shit outta luck.

 

[Smartt33]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible. I propose that marriage in the Bible was the joining together of a man and a woman. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible about in any way the marriage of two people of the same gender. However, there are many places where one can find principles that would indicate that a marriage between two of the same gender would not be recognized by God.

There werer legal contracts of marriage in the Bible, and the ones mentioned in the video above were certainly there. However, these laws are no longer followed because God has moved into a new era with mankind. God has a beginning plan, and it is no different from the plan He still has. How He teaches His people does change, and His laws do change based upon where His people are in relation to the world.

According to the NT the marriage that is acceptible is with one man and one woman.

Since it appears that marriage began in the Bible, and the laws surrounding it did evolve over those years, I suggest that the institution of marriage is still as it was all through the NT and OT, one man and one woman, while the laws around how those marriages worked did change, I propose that marriage is a one man and one woman institution, and should stay that way.

 

[Madeline]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.