Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[amrchaos]

No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation. It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.

If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage. If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.

 

[sealybobo]

But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs. Only gatherings of them in a building do. Just like the Constitution says. And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue. LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings. They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.

And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

Remember this thread folks? Last post in it was just two months ago. My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

Fire her? For her religious convictions? They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here. We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.

Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.

Depends on definitions doesn't it? Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex. I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise. But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion? Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.

Nothing wrong with sodomy

 

[dblack]

I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.

Unless he also bakes cakes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.

No minister or pastor in is private capacity can be made to marry people.

If he is a judge or jp or whatever working for government, he should proved for accomodation with other public officials who will marry others in his place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation. It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.

If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage. If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.

The church, the body of Christ, is always owned by the Congregation.

If the ministers are out of step with the Congregation, the Congregation needs to take a new road and let the ministers slide along their own zip line.

 

[mdk]

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.

Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.

I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.

The people should rebel against a government gone rogue, and it trying to force bad law or it's will upon them if it is bad. Period.

Hope to it then. Enough talk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I want to see beagle9 hop, hop, hop along.

 

[mdk]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can **** children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

 

[Bonzi]

I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.

No minister or pastor in is private capacity can be made to marry people.

If he is a judge or jp or whatever working for government, he should proved for accomodation with other public officials who will marry others in his place.

Maybe not but I bet there will be law suits...

How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?

 

[mdk]

I want to see beagle9 hop, hop, hop along.

Foot-stomping bluster from folks far too old to fight in this war is just that...foot-stomping bluster. People my age and younger, the ones whom would do the fighting, don't give a shit about gays getting married. We are not willing to die in a war just so fogies can oppress queers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?

If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.

 

[Bonzi]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can **** children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

 

[mdk]

80% of the people in this poll support the recriminalization of sexual acts between homosexuals. lol

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bonzi, it is discrimintion, yes, but it is religously exempted discrimination. No one can force a pastor or a minister in his private capacity to marry anyone.

 

[Bonzi]

How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?

If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.

Even if not, if you refuse, I think the homosexual couple will have a case.
Do you think the Church bylaws and constitution would protect them in a case like this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?

If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.

Even if not, if you refuse, I think the homosexual couple will have a case.
Do you think the Church bylaws and constitution would protect them in a case like this?

Church by laws and constitution mean nothing in terms of public law concerning accomodation. The state determines that if a church or congregation hold out one of their venues for public use then all groups should be accomodated.

FUMC of Jasper, KY, for instance, can offer its hall for public use. If KY has public accomodations laws, then it should hire Kim Davis to stand in the door to block homosexual meetings there. One, she is a jail bird anyway, so it does not matter, and two, she is big enough to block the door.

 

[mdk]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can **** children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, any couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.

 

[Bonzi]

Church by laws and constitution mean nothing in terms of public law concerning accomodation. The state determines that if a church or congregation hold out one of their venues for public use then all groups should be accomodated

... I'm not touching the Kim Davis stuff... anyway....

I'm not sure of our State laws, but, if we have let others marry in the church building (heterosexual, non-members) does that open the church up for a law suit if they then reject a homosexual couple to marry in the same church/building?

 

[mdk]

Bonzi, Why should Warren Jeffs follow a law that runs against this deeply held religious beliefs? It is being presented that people do not have to follow laws they feel are unjust to their faith. Why should he?

 

[Bonzi]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can **** children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, any couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.

I triggered it so you can blame me.
If it leads to otherwise good discuss however, it's worth it.