Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[koshergrl]

Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.

I don't know of anyone here that thinks the churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Most here are advocating the legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. And many have also argued that gays should be treated fairly and equally in business transactions. Beyond that, live and let live.

Did you miss the thread title?

 

[koshergrl]

Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.

Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.

Which you don't have.

I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.

Then why are you even in this thread?

No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.

So the point of the thread is moot?

You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?

I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.

 

[Syriusly]

Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.

Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.

Which you don't have.

I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.

Then why are you even in this thread?

No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.

So the point of the thread is moot?

You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?

I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.

I have repeatedly in this thread said that Churches should not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone against the churches will- and that would include homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Mormons, dwarfs, fat people or people with big hair.

No church will be- or should be- required to allow membership for any person they don't believe meets their membership requirements- whether because they are gay or black or because they are Baptists.

Nor should any church be required to accommodate any social event by any persons that they do not believe they should- and that could include homosexuals or blacks or Mormons or Jews or fat people.

Your complete lack of reading comprehension from my repeated posts of my opinions that Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry anyone- including homosexuals that they don't want to- just shows how blind your bigotry and partisanship makes you.

 

[koshergrl]

So we agree.

I'm glad you came around.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So the point of the thread is moot?

Pretty much if the basis of the discussion is government "force" as it pertains to religious ceremonies.

You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?

I recommend qualifying who you mean is doing the "Forcing". If it is the government doing it, absolutely not. On the other hand if it is the congregation that is telling the leadership of the church to be more accepting of LGBT individuals, and it passes by a majority vote, then the leadership can accept that result or resign.

I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.

If a religious organization is renting the meeting halls, sports centers, family life space to the general public, then those specific activities are governed as commerce (advertising for and renting space is a business activity) and they may fall under Public Accommodation provisions (or not depending on state law). If the religious organization doesn't want that to happen, simply don't rent to the general public - rent only to members of the congregation which means the activity is under the provisions of a private club and not a public business.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

So we agree.

I'm glad you came around.

I wonder who you are talking to- or maybe you are agreeing with yourself and think that the bigoted side of you finally came around and joined the intollerant side of you?

Meanwhile- I have consistently said that Churches will not and should not be forced to marry anyone against their will



Here are quotes of mine going back a week in this thread stating the same thing.

If you want to change the Constitution so that churches do not have the freedom to operate as they will, just change the Constitution.

Until then- no you can't force a church to marry blacks or Jews or homosexuals.


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.

Churches are treated differently than non-churches- which is why they have a different tax status among other things.

But if you feel otherwise- feel free to file a lawsuit- unless you are a Catholic, you cannot be married in a Catholic Church- feel free to file a lawsuit to say that your rights are being violated by the Catholic Church not allowing you to marry in your local Cathedral

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.

Your complete lack of reading comprehension from my repeated posts of my opinions that Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry anyone- including homosexuals that they don't want to- just shows how blind your bigotry and intellectual dishonesty makes you.

 

[koshergrl]

Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.

 

[Syriusly]

Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.

I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.

 

[Skylar]

Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.

I don't know of anyone here that thinks the churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Most here are advocating the legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. And many have also argued that gays should be treated fairly and equally in business transactions. Beyond that, live and let live.

Did you miss the thread title?

Did you miss the poll results?

 

[Skylar]

Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.

Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.

Which you don't have.

I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.

Then why are you even in this thread?

No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.

So the point of the thread is moot?

You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?

I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.

A church should never have to perform any ceremony that is contrary to their faith.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?

I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.

Once again you demonize and call names. That's not "criticism". You don't get it.

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.

Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

Held: Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.

Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See id., at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See Hurley, 515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does.

Correct, but the ****** DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"

An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable.

You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you.

You claimed:
A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I hope you enjoyed your lesson.

Except that private clubs HAVE been forced to accept members they do not want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.

Once again you demonize and call names. That's not "criticism". You don't get it.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.

Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

Held: Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.

Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See id., at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See Hurley, 515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does.

Correct, but the ****** DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"

An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable.

You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you.

You claimed:
A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I hope you enjoyed your lesson.

Except that private clubs HAVE been forced to accept members they do not want.

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of Private Clubs being forced by the government to accept members they do not want when those "clubs" have acted as a truly Private Club under legal analysis and not someone calling themselves a "Private Club" but yet functions as a for-profit public business?

Legal determination of truly "Private Clubs":
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one. Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them. In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in. The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot. A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.

So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages". You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one. When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.

Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.

And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.

Like I said- note the Nazi reference.

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

Well, Wikipedia says so. That MUST mean you're the brilliant uber-poster and you win.

Or not.

 

[Syriusly]

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.

Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.

And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.

Like I said- note the Nazi reference.

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

Well, Wikipedia says so. That MUST mean you're the brilliant uber-poster and you win.

Or not.

Yes- thanks for recognizing my win.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[Syriusly]

Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one. Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them. In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in. The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot. A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.

So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages". You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one. When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one. Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them. In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in. The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot. A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.

So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages". You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one. When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.

ROFLMNAO!

IF it were ever possible to make it impossible for people to apply straw reasoning, the Ideological Left would vanish in that instant.

 

[Syriusly]

Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one. Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them. In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in. The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot. A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.

So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages". You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one. When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.

ROFLMNAO!

IF it were ever possible to make it impossible for people to apply straw reasoning, the Ideological Left would vanish in that instant.

As usual- your post is just bat guano crazy.

Meanwhile

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- whether it is because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.

 

[Katzndogz]

Churches are not for profit businesses. Public accommodation laws do not apply.

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.

Finally. I was waiting for you to say that.

What exactly makes that church so sacred Syriusly? It is the faith that drives it. Yes, we both know the answer to why they are exempt. Because that faith transcends public laws.

With me so far? Good.

Where is the origin of that faith Syriusly? Answer: in the heart of every man, woman and child from whose spirit it springs forth from.

Ergo, forcing a christian baker to make a "gay wedding" cake is the most fundamental violation of the 1st Amendment there is. I'm not aware of a church that is registered with tax-exempt status in the US that preaches that you should avoid black people. I am aware of thousands of churches that preach you should avoid promoting a homosexual culture. Race vs culture/(emphasis on "CULT")