Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit.

Democrats who flooded our ranks in the 70s-80s destroyed our party. The Republican Party now is what the Democrat Party was in the 60s (and many of the same people) and the Dems are straight up progressive pigs.

Thx for updating my list... lets make that people with religious right authoritarian views, war hawk authoritarian views, and ex democrats who switched hats to be rinos and move the republican party to marxism, mucked up the republican party.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.

People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.

Freaking morons.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.

Really? Never heard of "Blue Laws" I see...

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.

People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.

Freaking morons.

Are gays forcing you to perform gay acts? This is a yes or no question.
Are gays forcing you to say you love gay people? This is a yes or no question.

Are you pushing for laws that legislate (force) and/or continue to legislate (force) that gays cannot be married? This is a yes or no question.

Forcing people is authoritative. Some authoritative actions are justified, such as stopping people from unjustly taking away other peoples life and liberty, such as stopping people from killing each other.

Being gay is not equivalent to murder, or rape. Being gay does not hurt anyone. No one's liberty is taken away by a gay couple getting married, because liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from people.

You appear to be one of those religious right people who think government is there to force the evil gay people out our society and legislate their relationships. Is that a correct?

 

[koshergrl]

1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school.

2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them.

3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not.

I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.

It's on the part of the homo lobby.

 

[g5000]

She says this:

But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.

And then in the same breath says this:

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[g5000]

Nope. No bigots on the Right. No, sir.

 

[koshergrl]

Er...so forcing churches to marry people they do not believe have the blessing of God is not authoritarian...

But telling gays that you aren't willing to marry them, is.

There's something wrong with you people. You don't understand the words you use, and you seem to think that not getting what you WANT is the same as being forcibly denied what you NEED.

I went through this with my kids as well..but I ended up teaching them the difference between being told "I'm not doing that for you" and being told "You aren't allowed to do that"....what a shame extremist statist weirdos can't grasp the concept. Queers can get queer clergy to marry them. There are plenty of churches and bizarro cults and new age whackos that will marry them. There are certain states that will marry them. In no way does my church refusing the marry them deny them the right to go to someone else and get married.

They do not have the right to force people to marry them. The idea is ludicrous.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.

2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.

3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.

I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?

And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.

It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.

In blue above.

 

[jillian]

1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.

2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.

3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.

I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?

And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.

It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.

In blue above.

teaching kids to be tolerant of others is not sex ed.

no. they're asserting their rights to equal treatment... which they are entitled to as citizens of this country

no one is saying churches should marry gays. nice try, though.

 

[koshergrl]

"Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"

"a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships. The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

"“when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,” she admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church’s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter. As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty."

Washington Same-Sex ?Marriage? Bill Is A Threat To Churches |

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.

People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.

Freaking morons.

You, my dear, are a banner bearer for the religious right authoritarians. The 10th just kicked you in your butt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Feldblum's ruling is overreaching and far to intrusive.

he is a wack of the far left as koshergrl is wck of the far right.

 

[koshergrl]

1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.

2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.

3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.

I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?

And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.

It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.

In blue above.

teaching kids to be tolerant of others is not sex ed.

no. they're asserting their rights to equal treatment... which they are entitled to as citizens of this country

no one is saying churches should marry gays. nice try, though.

They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.

They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?

 

[Andylusion]

She says this:

But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.

And then in the same breath says this:

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to absolutely everyone on this forum with a brain.

Me saying you can't make me marry a homo, is now me being authoritarian? Really... ? You idiot lol. Man, just when you think you've met the dumbest person on the forum, someone proves you wrong.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony" All that means is that they can't offer up their facilities and marriage services for sale to the public at large. They could still offer it for sale to private members only. But I see where you might think this is getting close. I don't like the language of this law either, but I see how it would not apply to churches that provide weddings for members (private not public). Please don't ask me to look up case law on private vs public, I've got to much work to do today

"a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships. The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” I'm against this judge's ruling.

"“when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,” she admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church’s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter. As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty."

Washington Same-Sex ?Marriage? Bill Is A Threat To Churches |

in red this time...
Thx for the links... yes we should not allow one side of a moral dispute to force the others to literally and/or figuratively "bless" their view.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.

 

[Andylusion]

Nope. No bigots on the Right. No, sir.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I will speak for me, and me alone.

Sir, I am a bigot.

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race "

Race: I don't believe in race. Only leftist believe in race. I believe that all humans are humans.... because that's what the science shows. Genetically, all humans are the same. But leftists support race, because then they can gain votes by giving special treatment based on 'race'.

That aside.. on G-d, and Politics, yeah I am absolutely a bigot. I am intolerant of wrong ideas, and I know I am right. Leftist politics are bad and damaging. Supporting what is good and right, is a virtue. Being against what is right, just to not be a bigot, makes you an idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.

Ok let's try this again........

What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

Which of those words, do you need to be further defined?

If my church says that absolutely no one without a Tuxedo, and blue suede shoes, is allowed.... not the government, nor the public, has any right to say otherwise. Period. End of discussion.

We live in a land based on freedom. Not government regulation. No one has the right to 'impose' themselves on others. At all. Period. The end.

You can't say we can't have it both ways, or neither ways, or whatever ways we want. It's our freedom. You have no right to impose anything on it. That's all there is too it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.

Ok let's try this again........

What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

Sorry, it doesn't. It only forbids the the government from establishing religion and from violating free exercise of religion. Renting a building for a fee to members of the public isn't a religious exercise - its a business exercise, ya fuckin' idiot.