Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?

Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The first amendment is very clear. First the government cannot establish a state religion. Secondly, they cannot enact any legislation that denies anyone the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

It doesn't say that at all. And the idea is demonstrably ridiculous. Some religious beliefs aren't compatible with free society and should not be allowed. Period.

 

[dblack]

Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.

That's the only valid answer, in my view.

 

[dblack]

Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.

That's the only valid answer, in my view.

 

[Synthaholic]

Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?

No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.

STRAWMAN FAIL.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic. If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran. Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.

Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.

Are you a member of the Catholic church?

Can you read?
I was a Mormon
I gave up religion for reality.

Can I read? Yes. But I can't read minds. If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest. They took you at your word. It's not their fault you lied. Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in. But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.

False it was offered and I took it.

Not false at all. It was offered to Catholics. You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church. If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic. If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it. Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing. And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all. Wanted a snack and a quick drink?

 

[dblack]

Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?

No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.

STRAWMAN FAIL.

How's it a strawman?

 

[dblack]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

 

[Mac1958]

Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.

That's the only valid answer, in my view.

Yep.

I can see legitimate exceptions in certain cases. For example, if you're the only provider of an important service within an X-mile diameter, I can see zoning laws that say you have to provide that service.

But for the most part, this isn't about laws. This is about intimidation, control, submission.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Your question doesn't merit response because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Your question also doesn't merit response because it is in fact legal in nature and context, you can't remove that legal context simply because you're not interested in – or more likely opposed to – current Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?

No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.

STRAWMAN FAIL.

How's it a strawman?

Because no one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to marry anyone.

 

[Ernie S.]

You you think your lack of belief justifies your violation of mine?

Why not you faux Christians seem duty bound to violate everybody else's rights and beliefs.

Where, exactly, have I violated your rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

I answered by saying that the current status quo is fine by me.

They get a pass because they are primarily religions and not businesses.

The distinction exists between for profit and non profit businesses. Do you want to eliminate that too?

If yes then on what basis?

 

[Synthaholic]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

The rest of us? No one is forcing me to preside over or host a marriage ceremony for any couple. No one is forcing me to attend any wedding. No one is forcing me to pay for a gay wedding with my tax dollars.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This would violate the freedom of religion.

I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.

 

[LindaVance826]

Christian churches use the messages in the Bible as the foundation of their faith. It is one thing to force a bakery to make a gay cake. It's another to perform a marriage between same-sex people, when the Christian church does not recognize same sex marriage. I will not be surprised when some of the small, eccentric churches choose to perform the marriage service for gays/lesbians. I don't see that happening with Catholic churches, or the huge protestant churches. Being politically correct isn't compatible with Christian scripture when the issue is same sex marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...

True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.

Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.

until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...

The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.

There is NO LEGISLATION in:

<<SNIP>>

Oregon (May 19, 2014)

A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.

Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.

​

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited​

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes


>>>>

 

[Bleipriester]

This would violate the freedom of religion.

I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.

You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.

Why?

There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).

Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?

Hyperbole much?

Not at at all. It's a legitimate question about the principles we're dealing with. It's a hypothetical to test the soundness of the premise. If a there was a church, of let's say - four people - who were into human sacrifice. Would they be able to ignore laws against murder? Of course we would not (or at least I'd hope you'd agree with that assumption) allow them to do that.

The bottom line here is that the point of the First Amendment's religion clause is not there to exempt religions from the law. It's there to prevent government from enforcing laws that target religions for special treatment (either for, or against). Our founders had seen the problems with letting religious power and government power join forces. It gets ugly quick. So the included a "wall of separation" to prevent it. But the intent was never to give religions a 'get out of jail free' card.

It's not a 'legitimate question,' you're confusing to separate and distinct issues: the First Amendment right of churches to practice their rituals absent unwarranted government interference, with that of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws authorized by the Commerce Clause applied to businesses open to the general public, laws that in no way 'violate' religious liberty.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...

True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.

Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.

until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...

The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.

There is NO LEGISLATION in:

<<SNIP>>

Oregon (May 19, 2014)

A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.

Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes


>>>>

PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.

Declaring deviants a protected class is laughably absurd.