Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples". The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.

ROFLMNAO!

Yes, because judicial authority is supreme and their judgement infallible.

LOL! You can NOT make this crap up.

The Idiocracy LIVES!

 

[Skylar]

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

Depends on the PA law. Many include explicit protection based on sexual orientation. Explicitly contradicting your assumptions.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples". The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.

ROFLMNAO!

Yes, because judicial authority is supreme and their judgement infallible.

LOL! You can NOT make this crap up.

The Idiocracy LIVES!

You're still not gonna touch Clayton's argument, are you? You're still running from it, refusing to address it.

"Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples

He's right of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys and Sil cannot show this statement to false: Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples

 

[Skylar]

Keys and Sil cannot show this statement to false: Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples

Nope. Not one example anywhere in our nation. Which answers the OP soundly.

No.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.

Done both frequently.

Apparently not at the appropriate time.

 

[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


>>>>

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.

Oregon Public Accommodation law: (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.


Religion isn't a "genetic minority".

Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.

Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".

Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.


>>>>

 

[Unkotare]

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.

So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.

Fun fact more republicans have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.

Link?

Look it up yourself.

= you're full of shit and you know it

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

There are already churches doing it. But just as no one is demanding a Catholic church perform Jewish weddings, there are not going to require any church to perform a wedding in opposition to it's tenets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.

A straw man fallacy is the effort to misrepresent your opponent's position by contriving an 'argument' your opponent would never make, and by 'attacking' that 'argument' (straw man) you claim 'victory.'

In your case you're attempting – and failing – to make the 'argument' that it's 'inconsistent' to require business owners who serve the general public to accommodate gay patrons, while not requiring the same of churches with regard to marriage and same-sex couples.

Indeed, your 'argument' fails as both a straw man and false comparison fallacy, where the case law that applies to public accommodations laws has no bearing whatsoever on the First Amendment rights of churches.

In order for a policy to be inconsistent, it must be applied differently to two similar situations, which is not the case concerning public accommodations laws and the religious liberties of churches, one having nothing to do with the other.

 

[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.

Oregon Public Accommodation law: (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.


Religion isn't a "genetic minority".

Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.

Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".

Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.

>>>>

Neither is sexual orientation...

But unlike sexual orientation... But the freedom to practice one's religion was accommodated publicly in the 1789.

 

[Skylar]

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?

It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.

I don't think he's attributing this particular argument to anyone in particular. But rather positing is as a general question. Its an exploration of the nature of religion in the constitution and its status under generally applicable law. At least as I read it.

I wouldn't consider it a strawman fallacy. As he's asking a general question rather than framing anyone's argument. He's even started a thread on the topic to severe any direct connection to any previous thread or argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?

The third option isn't applicable to the question being asked. The 3rd answer includes Churches nad every privately owned business.

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

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.

Oregon Public Accommodation law: (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.


Religion isn't a "genetic minority".

Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.

Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".

Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.

>>>>

Neither is sexual orientation...

But unlike sexual orientation... But the freedom to practice one's religion was accommodated publicly in the 1789.

Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Actually not, in fact it's an invalid answer because it simply follows the same fallacy you attempt to propagate.

No one seeks to 'force' anyone to associate in any manner he doesn't wish to, where public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' freedom of association.

 

[daws101]

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?

Still false to be misrepresentation there must be a concious effort to do so .
there was none.
Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member.
That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.

 

[daws101]

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?

Asked and answerd.

 

[jillian]

I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?

no one is suggesting they should. why did you start yet another thread with this question

 

[daws101]

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.

Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented. Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
I should say faux Christianity isn't.

 

[daws101]

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?

No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.

Done both frequently.

Apparently not at the appropriate time.

More subjective faux reasoning