Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.

 

[Skylar]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?

We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.

Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.

 

[Skylar]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.

Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.

I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.

 

[dblack]

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?

We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.

Gay marriage rights are a done deal. As they should be. I'm talking about the right to discriminate.

 

[dblack]

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.

Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.

I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.

Don't just steer around my point. Have the courage to address it head on. Have you considered that giving government the power to target unpopular opinions might someday prove to be a mistake?

 

[Skylar]

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?

We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.

Gay marriage rights are a done deal. As they should be. I'm talking about the right to discriminate.

So PA laws? We've had this discussion at least half a dozen times already. Do we really need to go through the motions again? We always end up in the same place: you using PA laws to forward libertarianism.

And me rejecting libertarianism as a system that costs more than it benefits.

Do we really need to do this dance again?

 

[Syriusly]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

[Syriusly]

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.

Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.

I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.

Don't just steer around my point. Have the courage to address it head on. Have you considered that giving government the power to target unpopular opinions might someday prove to be a mistake?

Feel free to push for the repeal of public accommodation laws.

They were passed- as Skylar pointed out context is important- because of historic incidents of discrimination. Maybe its time for them to be repealed. Maybe there is no more justification for them.

But for the last 50 years they have worked pretty much as designed, and we no longer see business's as routinely discriminating against people in housing or employment because they are black or Chinese or women or Jewish.

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Because they finally won majority support for the idea that they should be treated equally. What I find fucked up about this approach to civil rights is that real unpopular minorities will never get protected until they can get popular consensus on their side. At which point, they'll no longer be unpopular minorities. The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

The gays and the mormons have kinda 'broken bread' in Utah and come to some compromises. The State is moving forward on anti-gay discrimination legislation and religion-protection legislation. It seemed reasonable to me. Like people trying to understand and accommodate each other.

And it inspired me to clear the mental deck and have some pretty honest conversations with Christian friends of mine. The 'Love they Neighbor' Christians, not the 'God Hates Fags' Christians.

And I'm convinced at least some of these folks are genuinely motivated by sincere faith and no by any hostility toward gays. That their aversion to selling wedding products has to do with their relationship with God and not their relationship with gays.

I think there is some middle ground to be found on this specific and singular issue.

Yes, the middle ground is don't go into the wedding business if "some people's" weddings cause you consternation. As Syriusly pointed out, we would not allow these religious exemptions for any other minority group. It would be unthinkable to allow someone to use their religion to not serve an interracial couple.

 

[Mr.Right]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

 

[dblack]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government ...

That sums the whole issue up nicely

 

[Seawytch]

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

 

[Mr.Right]

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).

 

[Seawytch]

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).

Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff?

And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not heard? That Paul?

What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...

 

[Mr.Right]

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).

Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff?

And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not heard? That Paul?

What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...

You're a fool.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​

Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​

How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).

Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff?

And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not heard? That Paul?

What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...

You're a fool.

Gosh, what a stunning comeback. Not sure I'll ever recover from that one.

 

[Silhouette]

That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.

Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels. They were eyewitness accounts. Jude was Jesus's friend and personal servant. Read Jude 1 and get back to me.