Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[daws101]

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

False =you are too lazy to look.

 

[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.

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.

Disagree.

The argument is the OP's, his hostility toward public accommodations laws are well established by his own admission.

It's a straw man fallacy because he seeks to propagate the argument that it's inconsistent to support public accommodations laws while at the same time not applying the same policy to churches, where no one who supports public accommodations laws would ever advocate churches be compelled to do the same through force of law.

 

[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.

Disagree.

The argument is the OP's, his hostility toward public accommodations laws are well established by his own admission.

It's a straw man fallacy because he seeks to propagate the argument that it's inconsistent to support public accommodations laws while at the same time not applying the same policy to churches, where no one who supports public accommodations laws would ever advocate churches be compelled to do the same through force of law.

True about his own hostility toward PA laws. But he's not characterizing anyone else's argument nor hijacking an unrelated thread. He's merely positing a question in a thread of his own creation. That's seems about as intellectually viable as I can imagine.

A known bias doesn't make a question a 'strawman'. He clearly has an agenda. And by participating in his thread, its implied that you accept that

 

[Unkotare]

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

False =you are too lazy to look.

You ARE full of shit.

 

[dblack]

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

Wrong. I am suggesting they should.

 

[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?

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

Wanna bet?

 

[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?

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

I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Like many other things, you clearly do not understand what a straw man is.
Aside form that you clearly chose to not understand my point. Well done.

 

[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?

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

Then I suppose you've failed outright by responding, eh?

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.

In other words, you have only an appeal to authority to offer. No judgement of your own. Fine. You have no opinion. Next.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.

No, it isn't. It's not going to happen.

Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.

And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.

Irrelevant to my point.

Your point is that some idiot with no authority at all might express an opinion no one will bother listening to? Am I supposed to be concerned about that?

My point is that when it does happen, I hope that the moderate liberals will oppose the idea.
I will not,. however, bet the farm on it.

 

[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?

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.'

My "opponent"? Who would that be, in your view? I suspect you're making some really off-based assumptions here.

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.

Only if you assume churches are not public accommodations. Which is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

 

[dblack]

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.

No. You're failing to recognize the conflict between the two. Contrary to the paranoid subtext of your post, this thread is not based on my admitted opposition to PA laws. Instead, it's a direct criticism of what I consider to be to contradictory interpretation of the First Amendment.

I've long felt this way. The First was never meant to be an excuse for people, or businesses, or churches, to refuse to follow a law because "it goes against my religion". That's ridiculous on the face of it, because many religions throughout history have maintained practices that we would not tolerate as a free society.

Instead, the religious clause of the First Amendment, was meant to prevent collusion of religious and political power. It's purpose is to prevent the state from co-opting religion as a means of controlling people.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.

 

[dblack]

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?

There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.

That's only the end of the story if you insist on completely missing the point.

 

[Muhammed]

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?

Serve my cock.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.

That's only the end of the story if you insist on completely missing the point.

There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.

 

[dblack]

There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.

Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?

 

[OKTexas]

There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.

Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?

How many churches have you been in that has a business license framed on the sanctuary wall?

 

[Unkotare]

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

You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

Serve my cock.

^^^ Molecular Gastronomy. Emphasis on molecular.