homosexual marriage

[Czernobog]

A magistrate in the state I live in refused to marry a gay couple even though homosexual marriage was just declared legal by the courts. So a couple of questions.
1 If a gay couple ask a conservative preacher to marry them can he site his religious beliefs and say no?

Yes. Churches are private institutions whose behaviour is protected by the 1st Amendment. As representatives of the Church, preachers are similarly protected.

2 If the answer to question 1 is yes should a magistrate be able to say no because of his beliefs?

No. As hired agents of the Government, magistrates enjoy no such protections. They are required to act in accordance with all local, county, state, and federal laws. This means that if same-sex equality is recognized by your state, magistrates are required tlo perform ceremonies accordingly.

My only fear now that it is legal is that preachers are going to be forced into marrying them even though it is against his beliefs.

Two different things. The only exception I could see would be if the magistrate happens to be a preacher. Then, I would presume that his responsibility to the state would over-ride his protections as agent of the Church. However, I think that would be a pretty uncommon occurrence.

 

[beagle9]

If a church is providing a wedding service privately, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to demand they marry a gay couple.

If a magistrate is operating as a representative of the state, however, he or she should be required to follow the law of the land.

This seems an easy enough distinction to make to me.

Didn't work for the religious cake maker for whom didn't work for the state now did it ?

Easy you say, umm I don't think so. It should have been easy in the religious cake makers case, but the feds have fallen off of their rockers literally these days.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Q
Such is the nature of evil and is never less pronounced than where one finds the lowly fascist.

The evil is in statement such as your own.

LOL!

Is it now? How so?

And please... be specific.

(My apologies to the board. But such intellectual cruelty is sometimes necessary, to set the record straight by forcing the intellectually less fortunate to demonstrate their inability to sustain their drivel.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cake maker was subject to the laws of commerce in the state, son.

You can discriminate privately (if you can keep it quiet) not publicly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[ they suddenly want perfect strangers there to apply the vaseline.

No one is ever going to 'make' you apply vaseline to anyone.

On THAT we agree... .

Of course, they'll no doubt try... but my strict adherence to the responsibilities intrinsic to my God-given rights, will make it unlikely that they'll survive to tell anyone about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The more fortunate on the Board subject where_r to looking into the mirror so that he has the right to understand that he is self condemned for his foolishness in thinking that he understands the ways of the cosmos.

Tis what is.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Such is the nature of evil and is never less pronounced than where one finds the lowly fascist.

The evil is in statement such as your own.

LOL!

Is it now? How so?

Yes- it is.

Such is the nature of evil.

 

[Syriusly]

If a church is providing a wedding service privately, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to demand they marry a gay couple.

If a magistrate is operating as a representative of the state, however, he or she should be required to follow the law of the land.

This seems an easy enough distinction to make to me.

Didn't work for the religious cake maker for whom didn't work for the state now did it ?

Easy you say, umm I don't think so. It should have been easy in the religious cake makers case, but the feds have fallen off of their rockers literally these days.

The Feds had nothing to do with the Bakers.

 

[Katzndogz]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

So...if we have a religious ceremony, are we married then? Because many of us did that a loooong time before legal marriage came along.

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

This is really easy stuff.

Two people who vow to a life together- and get a marriage license are married.

Without the marriage license they are essentially shacking up.

Yes, they are, as long as they meet the minimal standards of Marriage...t.

Any two persons with a marriage licence who make the commitment to each other are married.

In every sense of the word.

they don't need your approval or agreement.

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. That is a law of nature, readily observable through the evidence set forth in the biological design of the species and the irrefutable imperative, common to that design.


Therefore in no sense of the word, are those of the same gender suitable for marriage.

You don't have to approve of it, you don't have to like it, but that is the way it is... and all of the pretending to the contrary, will not change it.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Ahh... so you're saying that because of the vicious nature of a militant ideology, who presently finds itself in power, people should cow to the abuses of power common to the advocacy of Foreign Ideas, that are hostile to American principles... or ELSE?

LOL! 'nothing particularly fascist about THAT!

Now where's the crank who poo-poo'd the notion that 'Das Folks' could ever 'choose' to usurp the rights of others, on the whim of their own subjective 'feelings'. "Absurd" indeed... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a church is providing a wedding service privately, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to demand they marry a gay couple.

If a magistrate is operating as a representative of the state, however, he or she should be required to follow the law of the land.

This seems an easy enough distinction to make to me.

Didn't work for the religious cake maker for whom didn't work for the state now did it ?

Easy you say, umm I don't think so. It should have been easy in the religious cake makers case, but the feds have fallen off of their rockers literally these days.

The Feds had nothing to do with the Bakers.

The Feds, the State... same same at the moment. If the State hadn't the Fed's would've.

Such is the nature of evil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law of nature propels the joining of two consenting adults.

There is no universal law that says the bonding must be heterosexual or homosexual, for both have existed throughout the ages.

Such is nature's way, so easily observed by the evidence of mankind's narrative.

The irrefutable imperative is that each human will seek out his or her mate.

 

[Syriusly]

If a church is providing a wedding service privately, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to demand they marry a gay couple.

If a magistrate is operating as a representative of the state, however, he or she should be required to follow the law of the land.

This seems an easy enough distinction to make to me.

Didn't work for the religious cake maker for whom didn't work for the state now did it ?

Easy you say, umm I don't think so. It should have been easy in the religious cake makers case, but the feds have fallen off of their rockers literally these days.

The Feds had nothing to do with the Bakers.

The Feds, the State... same same at the moment. If the State hadn't the Fed's would've.

Such is the nature of evil.

LOL.....such is the nature of laws against discrimination.

Which the evil despise.

 

[Syriusly]

So...if we have a religious ceremony, are we married then? Because many of us did that a loooong time before legal marriage came along.

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

This is really easy stuff.

Two people who vow to a life together- and get a marriage license are married.

Without the marriage license they are essentially shacking up.

Yes, they are, as long as they meet the minimal standards of Marriage...t.

Any two persons with a marriage licence who make the commitment to each other are married.

In every sense of the word.

they don't need your approval or agreement.

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. That is a law of nature,

There is no law of nature, and there nature doesn't care whether humans marry or not.

Humans have babies whether they marry or not.
Humans get married whether they have babies or not.

Marriage is a legal status- and a religious status.

In the United States the legal marriage is the only one that counts- because we are a nation of laws.

And in the United States, we all have the legal right to get married.

Even homosexuals.

To each other.

At least in 31 states now.

 

[Syriusly]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Or just don't bake wedding cakes if you have issues with baking wedding cake for certain people.

 

[Katzndogz]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Or just don't bake wedding cakes if you have issues with baking wedding cake for certain people.

It's easier than that. Just don't advertise that wedding cakes are a service that you offer to the general public.

Three years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They proved I was an artist. I certainly did paint portraits. What they could not prove was that I held myself out as an artist that would accept commissioned assignments. I never advertised. I won that case. And I remained free to paint all the portraits I wanted.

 

[Syriusly]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Or just don't bake wedding cakes if you have issues with baking wedding cake for certain people.

It's easier than that. Just don't advertise that wedding cakes are a service that you offer to the general public.

Three years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They proved I was an artist. I certainly did paint portraits. What they could not prove was that I held myself out as an artist that would accept commissioned assignments. I never advertised. I won that case. And I remained free to paint all the portraits I wanted.

I am not sure which I find more unlikely- that you were actually sued, or that you are an artist. But regardless- a commercial baker who doesn't 'advertise' that they sell wedding cakes can even more easily just not bake wedding cakes.

 

[Czernobog]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Or just don't bake wedding cakes if you have issues with baking wedding cake for certain people.

It's easier than that. Just don't advertise that wedding cakes are a service that you offer to the general public.

Three years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They proved I was an artist. I certainly did paint portraits. What they could not prove was that I held myself out as an artist that would accept commissioned assignments. I never advertised. I won that case. And I remained free to paint all the portraits I wanted.

That is precisely correct. If you do not want to e accountable to public accommodation laws, all you have to do is not do business with the public. Run your business as referal only. Of course, I'm not sure how much profit you will make, but hey! At least you won't have to do business with those icky icky fags.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

This is really easy stuff.

Two people who vow to a life together- and get a marriage license are married.

Without the marriage license they are essentially shacking up.

Yes, they are, as long as they meet the minimal standards of Marriage...t.

Any two persons with a marriage licence who make the commitment to each other are married.

In every sense of the word.

they don't need your approval or agreement.

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. That is a law of nature,

There is no law of nature, and there nature doesn't care whether humans marry or not.

Humans have babies whether they marry or not.
Humans get married whether they have babies or not.

Marriage is a legal status- and a religious status.

In the United States the legal marriage is the only one that counts- because we are a nation of laws.

And in the United States, we all have the legal right to get married.

Even homosexuals.

To each other.

At least in 31 states now.

There is no law of nature...

Hey look kids... There is no law of nature!

Man I tell ya! When the militant homosexuals of the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality get going, they really put their foot down! Even NATURE takes a back seat to the whim of the whimsically deviant.

LOL!

Now what tickles me, is that nature requires that evil LIES! Otherwise evil dies... no lies, no evil. You know how it is.

And that is what we're looking at here, where the projection is that "31 whole states" now 'allow' homosexuals to pretend to be married! Which is of course a rancid appeal to popularity which surreptitiously claims that legitimacy of their claim is based upon the will of the majority of 'the peoples'.

Of course, IN TRUTH > five Leftist federal jurists judiciously struct down LEGISLATION of almost every one of those states; wherein the vast majority of the duly elected legislative bodies representing stark majorities of the people of each of those states... passed laws that rejected the pretense that marriage is anything except what nature designed it to be.

Yet, the opposition is implying that the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality is legitimate because 31 States now accept it FULLY!

They're either liars or they're delusional... neither circumstance represents anything remotely common to something one would want to use as a guide upon which one's culture should be governed.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the triumvirate of evil at the hollow core of socialism.