Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.

Yet....

In all the years public accommodation laws have been in place not a single protected class has forced a church to marry them against their wishes. Not one. I know that doesn't fit your narrative but it is fact nonetheless.

I suspect the closer the SC gets to ruling on this issue the more you'll ratchet up the fear mongering and pearl clutching.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.

I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .

Business's are not churches.

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans

Riiiight. So we should just trust you that you're ONLY going to violate the First Amendment rights of businesses and private citizens, but you'll DEFINITELY stop at the rights of churches . . . because why?

 

[Nutz]

The government telling churches what their believes have to be is unconstitutional. I would join the tea party wackos in their efforts to violently overthrow the government if any such law were passed. I would be the one guy fighting for the black churches, keeping the teapers from starting a race war in that effort.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.

Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect. However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional. That requires liberalism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.

Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect. However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional. That requires liberalism.

You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...

"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.

Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect. However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional. That requires liberalism.

You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'

Please show where I said I believe homosexuality is a mental defect...

 

[mdk]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...

"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.

How hysterically dramatic. lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.

Yet....

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence allowing for necessary and proper regulation of the local market and all interrelated markets, having nothing to do whatsoever with private organizations such as churches.

As already correctly noted, there has never been a single case of public accommodations law being used to compel a church to marry anyone against the will of the church members, nor will this ever happen – to maintain otherwise is unfounded demagoguery.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.

Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect. However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional. That requires liberalism.

You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'

Oh, well, since YOU say so, that just settles everything, doesn't it?

Rumors of your importance are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...

"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.

How hysterically dramatic. lol

It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.

The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.

USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities.

The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.

Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics, and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy. Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.

Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.

That was all just the FIRST ten-year program. The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened. The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities. Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . . Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment. It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not yet. But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Can you imagine that?

Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.

Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.

Washington Senate Bill 6239

Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.

Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.

 

[Syriusly]

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.

Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect. However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional. That requires liberalism.

Many of us DO consider bigotry and homophobia to be a mental defect. It often accompanies incompetency in being able to handle social situations. Luckily it doesn't affect all conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.

I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .

Business's are not churches.

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans

Riiiight. So we should just trust you that you're ONLY going to violate the First Amendment rights of businesses and private citizens, but you'll DEFINITELY stop at the rights of churches . . . because why?

LOL....I am not advocating violating the rights of anyone.

IF you want to repeal the laws that require business's to do business with blacks or Jews or homosexuals- then you can take the same route that homosexuals have taken to repeal laws they thought were unfair- you can either change the law legislatively or argue that the law is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile- I can tell the diffrence between a church and a business- and since no one has told a church in the 50 years since the civil rights act that a church must marry someone that the church doesn't want to, it isn't going to happen now.

 

[Syriusly]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...

"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.

How hysterically dramatic. lol

It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.

The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.

USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities.

The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.

Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics, and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy. Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.

Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.

That was all just the FIRST ten-year program. The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened. The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities. Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . . Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment. It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.

And that of course has nothing to do with the United States.

Here in the United States, we are all protected by the Constitution- and that includes churches and homosexuals.

 

[Billy000]

It blows my mind this thread has gone on for so long. The obvious answer to this question is NO. 82% of the people polled agree with me. Let's put the issue to bed.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not yet. But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Can you imagine that?

Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.

Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.

Washington Senate Bill 6239

Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.

Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not yet. But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Can you imagine that?

Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.

Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.

Washington Senate Bill 6239

Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.

Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.

I am not certain what you think you are proving. What you posted stated very unambiguously that religious organizations are not treated as public accomodations under the law.

Nothing about 'bludgeoning churches into silence' at all.

You lying sack of homophobic shit.

 

[beagle9]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not yet. But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Can you imagine that?

You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.

All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a customized wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all. People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now. Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.

 

[beagle9]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...

"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.

How hysterically dramatic. lol

It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.

The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.

USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities.

The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.

Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics, and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy. Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.

Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.

That was all just the FIRST ten-year program. The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened. The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities. Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . . Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment. It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.

And that of course has nothing to do with the United States.

Here in the United States, we are all protected by the Constitution- and that includes churches and homosexuals.

I thought everything was progressive these days, otherwise always changing, so what's stopping anyone now ? Isn't their a saying "the enemy is now at the gates" ? Now everyone knows that the enemy doesn't have to be a person, but rather what the person or person's might want right ? Many issues have been highjacked by groups who seek to piggy back or ride in off of what was done for others upon specific issues, and it has been a progressive muddying of the waters ever since in this nation.

 

[Seawytch]

All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a customized wedding cake for a Gay couple .

Do you have a link to support your claim?