Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

 

[Skylar]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

 

[dblack]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

 

[Skylar]

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

 

[dblack]

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?

You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes. We've had this discussion already. I'm not going to waste hours of my life debating 'how religions are chosen' or 'why religions aren't businesses' or any of your other bullshit proxy issues just to get back to the same libertarian argument.

I already know the destination. We've both been there together. I have a T-shirt even. I'm not interested.

Take no for an answer.

 

[dblack]

Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?

You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.

That's your paranoid delusion. Just like the homophobes have the paranoid delusion that gays are trying to force churches to perform their weddings.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to talk about the way our Court has interpreted the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment. In particular, whether it should be used as an excuse for religious people to get a "waiver" on public accommodations laws.

We've had this discussion already. I'm not going to waste hours of my life debating 'how religions are chosen' or 'why religions aren't businesses' or any of your other bullshit proxy issues just to get back to the same libertarian argument.

Then for ****'s sake don't. But stop telling me I have to sit down and shut up. Because I don't. And I won't.

 

[Skylar]

Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?

You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.

That's your paranoid delusion.

No, that's my experience. And I'm hardly the only one who has made the same observation. You hijack other threads to pimp your libertarian argument. Steering them toward the same destination with bullshit proxy issues that you don't give a shit about ....and that waste enormous quantities of my time.

Especially since I've already had the libertarian argument with you. Why would I go through an endless procession of bullshit proxy issues to get to the same argument we've already had?

No means no. And yes Regis, that is my final answer.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.

I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?

You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.

That's your paranoid delusion.

No, that's my experience. And I'm hardly the only one who has made the same observation. You hijack other threads to pimp your libertarian argument. Steering them toward the same destination with bullshit proxy issues that you don't give a shit about ....and that waste enormous quantities of my time.

Especially since I've already had the libertarian argument with you. Why would I go through an endless procession of bullshit proxy issues to get to the same argument we've already had?

No means no. And yes Regis, that is my final answer.

Ahh... good.

 

[dblack]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.

So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?

 

[Skylar]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.

So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?

The only one saying that LGBT is a religion is you. But then, you also insisted that the 14th amendment included the protected 'categories' of race, gender, nation of origin and religion. So clearly you citing yourself doesn't amount to much.

 

[Ernie S.]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

Reread the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.

 

[Jackson]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

 

[Skylar]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Which gays are you referring to?

 

[Jackson]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Which gays are you referring to?

Any of them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?”

No one is saying any such thing.

This ridiculous straw man fallacy you've contrived was eviscerated long ago.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Which gays are you referring to?

Any of them.

Who are 'them' – what are their names, how many of 'them' are there, and what proof do you have that 'them' are representative of all gay Americans, or even exist, for that matter.

 

[Jackson]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Which gays are you referring to?

Any of them.

Who are 'them' – what are their names, how many of 'them' are there, and what proof do you have that 'them' are representative of all gay Americans, or even exist, for that matter.

Dear Clayton, I am referring to anyone of what is considered their homosexual persuasion. If they want to be married by a preacher, pastor or rabbi do some searching and find one that will do the job. If a person is religious, they should be happy with the presence of God in any ritual they find. Or Buddah, Mohammad, etc.

 

[Skylar]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Which gays are you referring to?

Any of them.

Who says any gay insists that all churches allow their marriages?

Your premise seems a little.....undeveloped.