Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Neil N. Blowme]

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.

So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead. It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult. Choice is one thing. Force is quite another...

Then your issue is with the law.

Not with homosexuals.

If the public accomodation laws protect persons whose lifestyle is Christian, and they also protect homosexuals in the same way from discrimination- then your objection is to the law.

Simple enough- change the law if you disagree with protecting people from bigotry.

Shove your law you know where.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

He doesn't know what he's saying. He's more confused than a termite in a yo yo.

 

[Syriusly]

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

 

[Carib Gyal]

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

 

[beagle9]

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

 

[beagle9]

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

 

[beagle9]

You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Yes. In Nevada. The pastor won. Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level. The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.

 

[Seawytch]

One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones sexual orientation to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.

Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.

I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?

Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.

In some places they are.

Council on Size and Weight Discrimination - Weight Discrimination Attorneys

 

[Seawytch]

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Yes. In Nevada. The pastor won. Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level. The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.

Got a link? Anyone?

 

[Syriusly]

You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.

People are doing that in many places in the world right now- it is the curse that is behind the violence in Iraq, Syria and many other countries.

I am fine with getting away from that type of 'separation'

 

[beagle9]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

 

[Syriusly]

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

 

[Syriusly]

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

 

[beagle9]

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale, and then to ask you to customize that product to their liking. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titled as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?

 

[Syriusly]

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?

If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go for it

 

[Carib Gyal]

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

 

[beagle9]

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?

If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go for it

The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.