Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

Bullshit.

Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.

(They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

 

[Paperman299]

You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened..

What does Loving v Virginia have to do with lifestyles forcing people to integrate them into marriage? Wasn't Loving v Virginia about a black MAN wanting to marry a white WOMAN?

The structure of marriage was in no way harmed by granting them that right that already existed. Gays want to create new rights in the Constitution that do not exist...protection of certain lifestyles that the majority finds repugnant. They want to remove regulation of behaviors and dupe the SCOTUS into granting their lifestyle-cult legal-dominance over actual religions and democracy itself.

LGBT cultists HAVE ALREADY SUED CHRISTIANS. Are you that dense? A church is nothing more, and I mean literally nothing more in a judge's eye than a congregation of individual christians. If the church is open to the public (which they all are), then within a week of the cult of LGBT gaining a federal club to force their dogma on other people legally, there will be a lawsuit filed against a church to accomodate a gay wedding within its halls. If it's open to the general public, they will be sued as a congregated group of individual christians.

Your assurance otherwise is flimsy, transparent and factually a lie. Moreover made worse by the fact that you know it is a lie...

You keep tying my question to whether civil rights and gay rights are the same thing to you. Of course, you don't think so. We've established that. We've also established that I and many pro-marriage equality types do, and think gay rights deserve as much consideration as civil rights do, to the point of learning from techniques at that time and adapting them to the present struggle. So far, all I've done is describe viewpoints, and I don't think anything so far could cause disagreement.

Now, take another look at the paragraph from my last post that you (a bit tellingly, I think) left out your quote:

"By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent [to activists] to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?"

 

[Paperman299]

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind.

Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not.

Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Bullshit.

Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.

(They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)



>>>>

You missed the point. The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs. We're talking about all churches and all pastors. From the article you didn't read:

“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

Read more: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind.

Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not.

Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?

Just a few of points....are we talking about real racists or people you Leftists call racist because they opt out of the political correctness game?

And another point, you failed to understand another viable option, that the friends we have don't buy into the political correctness crap. Many blacks are very conservative Republican types that don't like how you on the racist Left use race hustling for political points.

Another point still is that you have no idea who you're talking to on the internet. One look at me changes the context of everything I say because I'm Native American, not white. But you people have an image in your mind of all races falling into appropriate slots in the political spectrum, gays included...

Which brings me to my final point, the women who are friends of mine and my wife's are a lesbian couple who are actually set to get married this summer now that it's legal. But in most respects, they don't fit into the Leftist victim agenda because they hate LGBT as much as I do, don't like gays pushing their lifestyle in people's faces, and are outraged at hearing that gays are suing Christians for not providing services for their weddings. They actually call them faggots.

One of them was a teacher of mine when I was in junior high school. None of us ever knew she was gay because she didn't push it on us and she was the model of modesty, the kind that's lost in this country for both gays and straights. It used to be that nobody spoke publicly about things that should be private, sex being one of them. Most interfaces of society were G rated, whether we're talking about TV, radio, or just the way people talked to each other. As an adult I pursued a continued friendship with this woman and found that she was gay and living with another woman. It's not that she felt she had something to hide, but more that she didn't push things on us kids that should be none of our business.

The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. We've gone from a love that dare not speak it's name to a love that won't STFU and demands that everyone accommodate it. These ladies remind me that not all gays are like the faggots I encounter on sites like this.

 

[beagle9]

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.


Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.

Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.

You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.

By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?

Didn't have to make it a law or a forced situation, because people made the needed corrections on their own, and they were self implemented by the people when it came to marriage between a man and a woman still, and this was regardless of their skin colors in life when doing so.

Now Churches don't want to get into a situation where as they feel that the Christian religion is being used or made a mockery of by those who think that if they use the Church to justify something their up to, and all in order to make others look at their joining together as being a legitimate thing when it is not by their own doing, and yet they do this in the eyes of society but not in the eyes of God, well it won't last so why promote it or encourage it in that way at the Church level anyways right ? Many times and later on down the line, the people find out that it was all a sham marriage, and that is not a good thing to learn, because it is all just a waist of time, and then a mockery of the Church services and more when this occurs..

When the marriage is found to be a huge mistake according to one or the other of the couples that are involved, and then it ends quickly afterwards, then this is why many Churches don't want to encourage marriages to much that involve wasting the Churches time and even the couples time when all is said and done in this way. Keep it simple and Godly is what the Churches want always.

 

[beagle9]

Bullshit.

Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.

(They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)



>>>>

You missed the point. The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs. We're talking about all churches and all pastors. From the article you didn't read:

“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

Read more: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

WOW!

 

[Skylar]

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed.

You're not following his reasoning. You accept that race is a constitutional consideration for protection that is valid. And interracial marriage bans were clearly based in the religion of many who opposed it. This from the Virginia judge that convicted Richard and Mildred Loving:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Bazile

Yet despite what even you recognize as a valid legal basis for protection, not once in nearly 50 years has a church been forced to conduct an interracial marriage against its will.

Not once.

If your fear mongering regarding gay marriage and churches being forced to perform them had any logical or rational basis, then it would have been just as true for the last 50 years regarding interracial marriage. Perhaps more so, as even you recognize the basis of protection of race as being constitutionally grounded. And the courts certainly do.

Yet nothing. Your standard of fear mongering has been tested against history. And it failed perfectly. What you predicted would happen never has. Not once in nearly half a century. And you've presented absolutely nothing to indicate that it will.

 

[Skylar]

Didn't have to make it a law or a forced situation, because people made the needed corrections on their own, and they were self implemented by the people when it came to marriage between a man and a woman still, and this was regardless of their skin colors in life when doing so.

The 'self correction' you're speaking of didn't reach majority proportions for 30 more years. It wasn't until the late 1990s when a majority of nation approved of the legality of interracial marriage.

By those standard, we've already there for gay marriage. With a solid majority favoring the legality of gay marriage already.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

The people already 'self corrected'. Now the law simply needs to catch up.

 

[dadsgm]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No if it against their religious doctrine. And any priest, bishop, minister, rabbi, etc should make the decision for his congregation.

 

[Skylar]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No if it against their religious doctrine. And any priest, bishop, minister, rabbi, etc should make the decision for his congregation.

That's the perfect consensus in this thread. Not one poster has argued that a church should be forced to perform any wedding against their will.

What we have is a shit load of fear mongering from the right insisting that it will happen. Despite the fact that it never has....under any circumstance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs.

The City is doing no such thing, and it's been pointed out before so one can only assume you choose to perpetuate an untruth.

In September/October The Hitching Post stopped performing Civil Ceremonies and restructured their business. The City notified The Hitching Post on October 23rd that they are exempt from the law as long as they function as a religious corporation.

Hitching Post exempt - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

WOW!

I agree, "Wow" people should catch up on a story if they are going to talk about it.



>>>>

 

[beagle9]

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed.

You're not following his reasoning. You accept that race is a constitutional consideration for protection that is valid. And interracial marriage bans were clearly based in the religion of many who opposed it. This from the Virginia judge that convicted Richard and Mildred Loving:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Bazile

Yet despite what even you recognize as a valid legal basis for protection, not once in nearly 50 years has a church been forced to conduct an interracial marriage against its will.

Not once.

If your fear mongering regarding gay marriage and churches being forced to perform them had any logical or rational basis, then it would have been just as true for the last 50 years regarding interracial marriage. Perhaps more so, as even you recognize the basis of protection of race as being constitutionally grounded. And the courts certainly do.

Yet nothing. Your standard of fear mongering has been tested against history. And it failed perfectly. What you predicted would happen never has. Not once in nearly half a century. And you've presented absolutely nothing to indicate that it will.

The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ? How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.

 

[Skylar]

The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ?

Because the past had all the elements you insist are an indication of churches being forced to perform marriages agaisnt their will.

And it never happened. Your 'indications' don't result in the outcome you assume. If they did, they would have.

How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.

Show us a single church being forced perform a gay wedding. There is none.

Show us the PA laws that apply to churches. There are none.

Show us any significant public support for changing those laws to include churches. There is none.

Show us any credible legislation to change the PA laws. There is none.

You want to talk about the present indication of churches being forced to perform gay weddings? There is none.

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

No, it wasn't. It's calling him a bigot.

 

[kaz]

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind.

Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not.

Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?

Wow, I'm sorry I made you cry. It's OK, guy, it's just an internet conversation. Those are some serious tears. Take deep breaths and calm down. Here's a tissue.

 

[Seawytch]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell. It's no "less." LOL, liberals have no gray at all. It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.

I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.

Um...that isn't what I said. Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.

And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot. Hence my point you didn't comprehend.

And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.

Yes it does and now you're backpeddling on it. Now you see why I have a policy of believing people when they tell me details about their lives on these discussion board. It's a virtue to give people the benefit of the doubt unless there's strong reason to call it into question.

I've not backpeddled on anything. I called you a bigot not a liar. I never claimed your story wasn't true, only that it does not make you less of a bigot...which it does not.

 

[kaz]

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?

No, it wasn't. It's calling him a bigot.

Liar