Pastor's solution to the Christian caterer/homo gestapo dilemma:

[koshergrl]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Cool.

Instead of just discriminating against gays, they can discriminate against everybody who doesn't fall in line with their particular religion.

And for the gazillionth time, there is NO "sanctity of marriage" to reclaim.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why are gays obsessed with forcing us to like them? I'm sorry gays gross me out, its not my fault I was born that way.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We disagree about a lot of things and you are especially hateful to me, but the content of your OP, on the surface, imo looks legally feasable and I would say that if Christian merchants who are sooooooo sensitive about gays want to go this way, let 'em. If they can build a big enough market within those parameters, then go for it. I would wish them all the luck in the world.

I am going to ask C_Clayton_Jones - who IS versed in law, to look at this and give his input, because of course we could be wrong as to whether this is legally feasable.

I am assuming they (those businesses that go this route) would therefore be declaring that they are no longer offering a product for the general public and therefore also would not use public methods of transportation, i.e. highways, to move their goods, either. I'm cool with that. Surely there are enough private roads for them to get from point A to point B and so.

But if they go belly-up because of their decision and can't put food on the table anymore, then that's their problem.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I saw this, it makes perfect sense

 

[PratchettFan]

Ah good. Someone else jumping on the nonsense band wagon.

I would be surprised to find there are more than a hand full of businesses in the entire country for which this is an issue. Most small businesses are looking for work, not looking to turn it away. They are doing it for money. But it hits the media, who blow it entirely out of proportion, so the politicians have to weigh in to prove they are doing something. Enormous furor is raised for what is a non-issue.

I wish the man well in his campaign. Especially in finding anyone running a small business who wants to tell customers to keep their money.

 

[guno]

When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why are gays obsessed with forcing us to like them? I'm sorry gays gross me out, its not my fault I was born that way.

Do you see Buddhists having to endorse their beliefs through the state in order to have free exercise of religion?
Muslims get targeted, by preemptive strikes, for even the fear of endorsing "Shariah" practices through the state.
Why are secular beliefs allowed to be established and specifically protected as religious practices through govt, but all others must respect "separation of church and state." What if Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, all the other sects and even cults
decided their marriage beliefs and customs must be stated in public policy in order to be equal with other practices?

 

[koshergrl]

We disagree about a lot of things and you are especially hateful to me, but the content of your OP, on the surface, imo looks legally feasable and I would say that if Christian merchants who are sooooooo sensitive about gays want to go this way, let 'em. If they can build a big enough market within those parameters, then go for it. I would wish them all the luck in the world.

I am going to ask C_Clayton_Jones - who IS versed in law, to look at this and give his input, because of course we could be wrong as to whether this is legally feasable.

I am assuming they (those businesses that go this route) would therefore be declaring that they are no longer offering a product for the general public and therefore also would not use public methods of transportation, i.e. highways, to move their goods, either. I'm cool with that. Surely there are enough private roads for them to get from point A to point B and so.

But if they go belly-up because of their decision and can't put food on the table anymore, then that's their problem.

I can't believe you are trying to float the ridiculous lie that CC is "versed in law". If he's "versed in law" it's as a jailhouse lawyer and no other.

 

[guno]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Let's also tax those parasitic ententes (churches) no more tax free rides

 

[koshergrl]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Let's also tax those parasitic ententes (churches) no more tax free rides

^^^anti-Christian zealot, why aren't you shooting Christians in Kenya, loser?

 

[emilynghiem]

When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.

guno
1. But this isn't enforced consistently!
Why is it okay for the govt to discriminate against people who believe in funding
medical charities and schools instead of insurance.
Why isn't that discrimination by creed, and the protests and objections it has caused,
being considered equally? Why is it only the LIBERAL and secular beliefs are endorsed by govt?
Clearly there is a bias, a double standard going on.
When the secular belief is considered superior and more worthy of protection as the default,
and the other belief is considered inferior and not a valid interest or belief.

2. also guno how far do you want to take this?
If videographers doesn't want to film gay porn, are they discriminating?
If a wedding hall doesn't want people to stage a nude wedding there, is that discriminating against nudists?

Have you lost all common sense?

Why can't people CONSENT and form contracts by free will and free choice anymore?
What is going on?

2. Not only are you talking about having govt dictate all the choice people can or cannot make but
1. This isn't even being enforced CONSISTENTLY

Only if it agrees or disagrees with YOUR values do you argue it is Constitutional or Unconstitutional.
Both issues are DANGEROUS.

Am I the only progressive Democrat on this board, or within 500 miles, that sees this is overreaching
and abuse of govt to dictate to people? What happened to people making decisions by mutual consent,
instead of abusing govt to tell everyone what to do?

 

[emilynghiem]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Let's also tax those parasitic ententes (churches) no more tax free rides

Dear guno
yes, when the ministries and volunteers who provide FREE medical help, FREE healing, and other FREE health and social services aren't credited for that work and the cost saved to the public.
But these same people are TAXED and FINED for not buying insurance that doesn't heal cancer or
cure addictions as the Christian ministries and outreach that provide services for FREE,
then YES you are taxing these people and punishing them for helping people for FREE.

Because they aren't charging for their services, and aren't using money to buy insurance,
they are facing fines and being penalized.

You are already getting what you wanted. But you are hurting the volunteers who work for FREE.

And these FREE methods are they key to providing "universal health care" to ALL the populations because it is natural and sustainable, and would reduce waste and save lives and millions in costs and resources that otherwise could have served more people.

These very solutions would save the health care system, by saving and redirecting resources,
but you are too busy penalizing, rejecting and blaming Christians because of your ignorance.

 

[Statistikhengst]

When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.

BINGO!

Like I said, if those people REALLY want to go that route, then fine. But they don't need to use public methods of transport then, either. Let em rely of Jeebus to get magic cake from point a to point b.

 

[bendog]

I don't see anything wrong with a caterer (or whatever) putting out a sign that says we only cater weddings at X church. However, if what evolves (-: is simply a list of all the churches in town that don't do gay marriage ceremony, then it's no different from the previous discrimination.

 

[Katzndogz]

It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.

Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.

 

[2aguy]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Do you really think the borg collective will let these businesses escape their wrath so easily........?

 

[emilynghiem]

When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.

BINGO!

Like I said, if those people REALLY want to go that route, then fine. But they don't need to use public methods of transport then, either. Let em rely of Jeebus to get magic cake from point a to point b.

Yes Statistikhengst
and also let the Christians set up their own schools, prisons, hospitals and social programs
where people can fund what works DIRECTLY, instead of abusing govt to act as a charity that doesn't work.
Exactly!

We'd solve the prison, mental health, immigration and health care funding
by allowing people FREE CHOICE to fund medical programs that work naturally and effectively.
Instead of being forced to buy insurance through govt that doesn't cure any cause of sickness and doesn't
create service providers, facilities or programs for health care for the general population.

I AGREE to separate. Let people pay their taxes into local programs as a BUSINESS
and deduct 100% from taxes to govt. Sure! You'd actually have progressives and libertarians AGREE on something!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established as a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it, and once you make one for something other than a church you have no leg to stand on.

Do it the easy way, bake the cake.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't see anything wrong with a caterer (or whatever) putting out a sign that says we only cater weddings at X church. However, if what evolves (-: is simply a list of all the churches in town that don't do gay marriage ceremony, then it's no different from the previous discrimination.

They don't have a sign. They don't need a sign. They just don't offer catering services to the general public. Many catering services do not offer services to the general public. They only cater corporate events.