Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.

If that's the case, imagine where people will go who allow people who promote these types of parades access to orphans via marriage/adoption priveleges? Is there a basement below hell?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.

If that's the case, imagine where people will go who allow people who promote these types of parades access to orphans via marriage/adoption priveleges? Is there a basement below hell?

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE PROMOTING THEM YA DUMB ASS

 

[mdk]

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom. It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity. Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin. It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer.

Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..

If only churches were mandated to marry anyone against their wishes. If only...

You can't name a single church in this country that was forced to marry a gay couple. Not one. All you have is "what ifs" and Pandora's Box type scenarios that have not come to pass.

You've lost on this point but you don't have the stones to admit it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.

Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free." I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination. It is a STRAW-MAN to say different. All churches have members and congregations. This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership. Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people. When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.

I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.

RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free." I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination. It is a STRAW-MAN to say different. All churches have members and congregations. This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership. Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people. When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.

I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.

RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.

Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there. Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership. That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.

Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities. Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free." I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination. It is a STRAW-MAN to say different. All churches have members and congregations. This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership. Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people. When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.

I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.

RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.

Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there. Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership. That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.

Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities. Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.

So you really believe that if Sam's Club hung a sign outside their door, that read NO BLACK MEMBERS that would be legal and blacks and other assorted babies wouldn't come out of the wood works?

As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free." I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination. It is a STRAW-MAN to say different. All churches have members and congregations. This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership. Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people. When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.

I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.

RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.

Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there. Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership. That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.

Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities. Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.

So you really believe that if Sam's Club hung a sign outside their door, that read NO BLACK MEMBERS that would be legal and blacks and other assorted babies wouldn't come out of the wood works?

As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate.

Sam's club is not a private club. They are a public club with membership dues. There are no restrictions on who can join the club. Thus, they have to follow public accommodation laws.

You said: "As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate."

You are wrong, it is not a different scenario, they can discriminate by simply stating that only owners / members can enter the store. It's that simple, and they do restrict sales to members in some communities, members that are selected using discriminatory practice. So it is the same damn thing, just based on age discrimination instead of race.

 

[Silhouette]

Forgetting of course that this is a culture war and LGBTs have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the fed grants their behaviors special protections, they will not wait until the ink is dry to launch lawsuits against churches. If they didn't it would be the singular exception to their modus operandi thusfar.

 

[RKMBrown]

Forgetting of course that this is a culture war and LGBTs have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the fed grants their behaviors special protections, they will not wait until the ink is dry to launch lawsuits against churches. If they didn't it would be the singular exception to their modus operandi thusfar.

You do realize they already file lawsuits against churches right?

 

[mikegriffith1]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.

In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.

 

[Seawytch]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.

In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.

Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.

 

[Silhouette]

Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.

Your buddy RKM Brown just said gays are already suing churches. Like I said, if "LGBTs" gain federal protection for their behaviors-as-lifestyle, before the ink is dry they'll be suing the hell out of churches. And if they didn't, it would be a complete 180 from their current modus operandi.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.

Your buddy RKM Brown just said gays are already suing churches. Like I said, if "LGBTs" gain federal protection for their behaviors-as-lifestyle, before the ink is dry they'll be suing the hell out of churches. And if they didn't, it would be a complete 180 from their current modus operandi.

Homosexuals, as people included in "All Citizens" under the 14th Amendment have had federal protections since Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Those cases were decided about 20 years ago and 10 years ago respectively, is the ink dry yet? Where is the slew of lawsuits against Churches trying to get them to perform religious ceremonies?



>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

People sue in this country. It normal.

Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.

United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom

Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment

Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com

Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet

Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59

Fired gay worker suing church

Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter

 

[Seawytch]

People sue in this country. It normal.

Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.

United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom

Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment

Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com

Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet

Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59

Fired gay worker suing church

Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter

None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.

 

[RKMBrown]

People sue in this country. It normal.

Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.

United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom

Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment

Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com

Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet

Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59

Fired gay worker suing church

Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter

None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.

I saw one that was... but could not verify it. Most civil lawsuits don't get a lot of press.

 

[Silhouette]

None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

 

[WorldWatcher]

None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

Anyone can file a suit, that's not the question. The question is would it be tried and would the plaintiffs win. A lawsuit requiring a Church to perform a religious ceremony wouldn't win.


I support the right of Churches to refuse to marry black people, that doesn't mean I'm against black people Civilly Marrying. I'm in favor of the government not dictating that a Church be required to perform a religious ceremony.

I support the right of Churches to refuse to marry same-sex people, that doesn't mean I'm against same-sex people Civilly Marrying. I'm in favor of the government not dictating that a Church be required to perform a religious ceremony.



See that's were you have repeatedly lied about what the poll means. One can be against the government requiring a Church to perform a religious ceremony and yet be for access for those same people to the equal treatment by the government.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask again [TO SEAWYTCH AND SEAWYTCH ALONE]

None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll ask again [TO SEAWYTCH AND SEAWYTCH ALONE]

Then send a PM, this is a PUBLIC message board.


>>>>