Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

If you were a dictator, when you write, "A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer ", you could make such a pronouncement with force.

You are not, and you can't. In fact, in our society, your definition is worthless.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others. A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer. The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it. Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.

Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.

Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles. No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.

You still don't understand. No one forced a church to marry anyone. No one forced a church to host a gay wedding. You are clueless.

 

[Silhouette]

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

No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.

So you are saying that if churches denied marrying blacks because of their race, you would support them in doing so and would not stand by a black lawsuit against said church? ...that such a lawsuit would be "quickly dismissed"? Really?

Tell me then, what other people who objected to marrying blacks would you admonish and why? Or for that matter, what other people would you object to for merely refusing to serve blacks in any other capacity? And how quickly do you think those lawsuits might be dismissed?

 

[mdk]

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

No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.

So you are saying that if churches denied marrying blacks because of their race, you would support them in doing so and would not stand by a black lawsuit against said church? ...that such a lawsuit would be "quickly dismissed"? Really?

Tell me then, what other people who objected to marrying blacks would you admonish and why? Or for that matter, what other people would you object to for merely refusing to serve blacks in any other capacity? And how quickly do you think those lawsuits might be dismissed?

Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.

The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.

Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.

The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.

Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.

And Hobby Lobby? A devout person's business that accomodates the public. Would you support Hobby Lobby not selling their wares to black people or providing insurance to black workers because of their race?

 

[n0spam4me]

In the strictest interpretation of the FIRST amendment, Congress shall make NO law.....
and that is the LAW shall NOT interfere with the exercise of religion ( possibly with the exception of outlawing human sacrifice ) However, the whole bit is problematic in that in order to be defined as a CHURCH, the law must define religion, because its like this
If you do religion the way that the state likes
you get a big fat juicy tax exemption
and if you do not do religion the way that the state likes
you get NOTHING.

Planet Earth ..... we have a problem here ......

 

[mdk]

Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.

The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.

Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.

And Hobby Lobby? A devout person's business that accomodates the public. Would you support Hobby Lobby not selling their wares to black people or providing insurance to black workers because of their race?

I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory.

Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.

I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.

 

[Silhouette]

I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory.

Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.

I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.

You are partially correct. My next line of questioning is first a given: that Hobby Lobby won, supported by the SCOTUS decision. Second from that given, I'll ask you what the difference is between Hobby Lobby being able to deny coverage for birth control and Hobby Lobby denying coverage for black people is. [Not that they are denying coverage to blacks, just what that difference would be if they were...in your own words...]

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..

And OK, anyone else too. It's a simple yes or no question.

I've answered it (here and in other threads) at least ten times: no.

 

[RKMBrown]

I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory.

Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.

I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.

You are partially correct. My next line of questioning is first a given: that Hobby Lobby won, supported by the SCOTUS decision. Second from that given, I'll ask you what the difference is between Hobby Lobby being able to deny coverage for birth control and Hobby Lobby denying coverage for black people is. [Not that they are denying coverage to blacks, just what that difference would be if they were...in your own words...]

Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control. Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?

 

[Jarlaxle]

A human spambot.

 

[Silhouette]

Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control. Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?

My bad. What was it Hobby Lobby won then? It was religious based, yes?

 

[RKMBrown]

Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control. Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?

My bad. What was it Hobby Lobby won then? It was religious based, yes?

They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

 

[Silhouette]

They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.

But why did they win that? On what grounds did they claim they didn't have to pay for those?

 

[Silhouette]

Cecilie to Seawytch:

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

An absolutely stunning and deeply accurate post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others. A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer. The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it. Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.

Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.

Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles. No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.

Sorry, but you lost me at "THOSE people should be forced to . . ." I can't get behind the idea that my rights are optional, and that there's ever a point at which YOU have the right to demand any more from me than to leave you alone to do as you wish.

Just as there are other photographers, there are also other grocery stores, other clothing stores, other doctors. There are always other options for you to get what you need aside from enslaving others, no matter how compelling you consider your reason for slavery to be.

 

[RKMBrown]

They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.

But why did they win that? On what grounds did they claim they didn't have to pay for those?

What does it matter? The point was they were not seeking protection from what you say they were seeking protection from.

Just because the 1st amendment protects the rights of US citizens does not mean you get to change the details of the hobby lobby case.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?

Churches are changing too.


The Lead

 

[Redfish]

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?

Churches are changing too.

The Lead

yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling