Religious Tolerance: Church kicks whole family out for supporting their gay daughter

[iamwhatiseem]

More liberal whining.
As stupid as it is, the church is a private organization. Sort of like complaining about you not allowing someone in your home. It is your home.
It is their church. They could refuse people who wear lime green shirts if they want to.

 

[Caroljo]

If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.

The church does not have to ACCEPT or ENDORSE any sin. But a church is their to help sinners! Every single person that belongs to a church is a sinner in some way....every sin in God's eyes is the same. What good is a church if they only let sinless people in the doors? Well actually....that church would be closed because there aren't any sinless!

A church does not have to agree to marry gays, they do not have to accept their life style...they are there to HELP. I don't believe Jesus would have done this....

 

[Seawytch]

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Or an interracial or interfaith? No. Ridiculous hyperbole.

Let me guess, it is also a baseless claim that any couple would sue a photographer who doesn't want to go to their wedding.

No. That did happen, but a photographer isn't a church and that had to do with public accommodation not marriage equality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not the point. Would he have kicked them out of the church?

Since the church didn't kick them out I don't see your point.

I think the church knew that giving them a choice, they would be leaving, then people wouldn't have a reason to complain that they kicked them out.

Christians know homosexuality is a sin....
as is hundreds of other sins that people do every day.

Who really NEEDS to be in church more? A sinner! This is why Jesus hung around with criminals too....they need him just as much or more than some others.

I don't believe Jesus would have done what this church did. There is not one person in this world that are not sinners in some way. The church doesn't have to "approve" of what your sin is....it's there to help you stop the sinning. How are they going to help people that need help by turning their backs on them??

Again, the church did not kick them out. Jesus expected people who hung around him to repent of their sins also, so they did. The ones that chose not to generally chose to leave rather than listen to Jesus talk about repentance and remission of sin. You are free not to go to church if you do not want to, you are not free to demand that any church do things your way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or an interracial or interfaith? No. Ridiculous hyperbole.

Let me guess, it is also a baseless claim that any couple would sue a photographer who doesn't want to go to their wedding.

No. That did happen, but a photographer isn't a church and that had to do with public accommodation not marriage equality.

It happened even though idiots like you said it wouldn't when people like me insisted it would.

 

[blackhawk]

So let me guess the implication from the left will be because of the actions of this church every church and every person of faith hates gays is that about it?

No, that's the only way you are able to process it, details and specifics aren't your forte' and makes your head hurt when you cannot generalize

No the way I process it is with the history of the left taking fringe elements of any group especially those they don't like or agree with and trying to pass them off as the norm I find it highly amusing to be accused of generalizing the very thing the left excels at.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me guess, it is also a baseless claim that any couple would sue a photographer who doesn't want to go to their wedding.

No. That did happen, but a photographer isn't a church and that had to do with public accommodation not marriage equality.

It happened even though idiots like you said it wouldn't when people like me insisted it would.

We insist it didn't happen because it didn't happen. No church has ever been required, by law, to marry any couple it has a religious objection to marrying. No interracial couples, no interfaith couples and no gay couples have ever successfully sued a church to require them to perform the religious marriage ceremony for that couple.

 

[Seawytch]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/t/story?id=15065204

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. That did happen, but a photographer isn't a church and that had to do with public accommodation not marriage equality.

It happened even though idiots like you said it wouldn't when people like me insisted it would.

We insist it didn't happen because it didn't happen. No church has ever been required, by law, to marry any couple it has a religious objection to marrying. No interracial couples, no interfaith couples and no gay couples have ever successfully sued a church to require them to perform the religious marriage ceremony for that couple.

Want me to pull up all the people who insisted that no one would ever be forced to attend a gay wedding? Were you one of the people that argued that when people started saying that it would happen?

Seriously, just admit you were wrong for once in your pathetic life.

 

[Seawytch]

It happened even though idiots like you said it wouldn't when people like me insisted it would.

We insist it didn't happen because it didn't happen. No church has ever been required, by law, to marry any couple it has a religious objection to marrying. No interracial couples, no interfaith couples and no gay couples have ever successfully sued a church to require them to perform the religious marriage ceremony for that couple.

Want me to pull up all the people who insisted that no one would ever be forced to attend a gay wedding? Were you one of the people that argued that when people started saying that it would happen?

Seriously, just admit you were wrong for once in your pathetic life.

Go right ahead. Still is not a church being successfully sued to perform a ceremony against their faith.

And no, I never said public accommodation laws wouldn't happen, but public accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality and vary state to state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We insist it didn't happen because it didn't happen. No church has ever been required, by law, to marry any couple it has a religious objection to marrying. No interracial couples, no interfaith couples and no gay couples have ever successfully sued a church to require them to perform the religious marriage ceremony for that couple.

Want me to pull up all the people who insisted that no one would ever be forced to attend a gay wedding? Were you one of the people that argued that when people started saying that it would happen?

Seriously, just admit you were wrong for once in your pathetic life.

Go right ahead. Still is not a church being successfully sued to perform a ceremony against their faith.

And no, I never said public accommodation laws wouldn't happen, but public accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality and vary state to state.

Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

God hates fags....

no, God hates the sin they are committing.

Yes, because a cosmic being capable of creating a universe over a 14 billion year period is REALLY, REALLY concerned about where you are sticking that.

 

[JoeB131]

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Churches are sued all the time.

It's too bad we can't apply the consumer fraud laws to them.

If Listerene could be forced to stop claiming their product prevented colds when it was proven it didn't, shouldn't churches be forced to stop claiming there's a heaven when they can't prove that?

 

[Seawytch]

Want me to pull up all the people who insisted that no one would ever be forced to attend a gay wedding? Were you one of the people that argued that when people started saying that it would happen?

Seriously, just admit you were wrong for once in your pathetic life.

Go right ahead. Still is not a church being successfully sued to perform a ceremony against their faith.

And no, I never said public accommodation laws wouldn't happen, but public accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality and vary state to state.

Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.

When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?

When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.

 

[The Rabbi]

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Churches are sued all the time.

It's too bad we can't apply the consumer fraud laws to them.

If Listerene could be forced to stop claiming their product prevented colds when it was proven it didn't, shouldn't churches be forced to stop claiming there's a heaven when they can't prove that?

Can you prove there isn't? No? The STFU.

 

[Chuckt]

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Just like the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia can't be sued because of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Chuckt]

Go right ahead. Still is not a church being successfully sued to perform a ceremony against their faith.

And no, I never said public accommodation laws wouldn't happen, but public accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality and vary state to state.

Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.

When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?

When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.

The only thing Churches might be able to argue is separation of Church and State.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

A group of people get together and decide that they share a belief. In this case, it is a religious belief. They believe that homosexuality is a sin and that supporting it is wrong. A member of their congregation openly takes action to support same-sex benefits directly in opposition to their previously shared beliefs. The question here is whether or not this group has the right to decide the beliefs of it's group.

Suppose this member now decides that Jesus Christ is NOT the son of God and never even existed? In public, this member actively supports an activity that reflects that new belief. And is this group then supposed to be 'tolerant' of this new belief of one member. Suppose it involves incest, or rape, or the fact that Adolf Hitler was just a misunderstood momma's boy and the holocaust was a lie?

Christianity loves the sinner but hates the sin. If homosexuality is a sin to this church group, then being tolerant of a member that supports the activity is hypocritical at best. If the member now supports the activity, after knowing all along that the group does not and will not, then I believe that the member is incredibly self-centered if they foolishly believe that the group should change their views to accomodate the single member.

I see on this forum all the time people that attempt to quote repeatedly that 'Christians should not judge other people.' What a load of crap and nothing is further from the tenets of Christianity. A single passage of the bible, taken out of context, does not relinquish people from the fact that we are called by Christ to see the evil in the world for exactly what it is and to refrain from it. My friends, THAT by its very definition is judging. To this group, homosexuality is a sin. They are called to see it for what it is and to refrain from it. By allowing a member to support it is in itself a tacit approval of the sin. As a Christian, the type of Christian that I believe we should be, we MUST see activities for what they are and then judge if they are sinful or not. Letting everybody do their own thing is a saying on a poster from the 60's, NOT a tenet of Christianity.

If the member changes their belief then the reasonable expectation is that the member should join a congregation that does not believe that homsexuality is a sin. To believe, even for an instant, that the Church your family has attended for 60 years is going to change just because you want it to is ridiculous and idiotic. I believe there are a number of Unification churches that even accept gay clergy. They should go there.

Because supporting your gay daughter in pursuit of her equal rights IS THE SAME as denying the keystone of christian belief.





As I said before, this family is better off now.

And so is the church. Since people still have the right to congregate with whom they choose, then they have chosen not to include someone who supports something that they oppose. At least for now, freedom of religion is still one of the enumerated rights of the constitution.

And just exactly what is the keystone tenet of christian belief that this group is denying? If you are saying that the church should embrace this member, regardless of her support of a 'sin', then you once again misunderstand the doctrine. The 'sinner' must repent and renounce the sin.

Christ, as well as most churches attempting to follow His teachings, have always said that we love the sinner, but hate the sin. No one that I know of, including in this instance, has ever been turned away because of the sins that they have PREVIOUSLY commited. Those that confess and repent of their sins can be forgiven of those sins and based upon their belief in Christ, will be like new.

When Christ forgave the prostitute and she joined Him, did He say, that's okay you can continue to be a prostitute? No. Did He say to his followers that it was okay to support prostitutes? No again. The sinner is not the issue. It is the sin itself that is the issue. If you confess (to Christ) and repent of your sins, then you have to stop committing the sin, like the prostitute in the bible. If something IS a sin, then likewise you cannot give it tacit approval. To blow it off by saying, someone is genetically predisposed to commit the sin, is illogical and immaterial. As mortal beings with immortal souls, we are not defined by our actions. We are separate from them. And to support a life style that is defined by this group as a sin is also against the tenets of the church. To say otherwise is a total misunderstanding of the church and its teachings.

 

[Seawytch]

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Just like the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia can't be sued because of the 1st Amendment?

BSA v Dale

A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.

When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?

When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.

The only thing Churches might be able to argue is separation of Church and State.

They don't have to argue anything. A church cannot be forced, by law, to marry ANY couple.