Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.

Look at you, trying to cover for their bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.



Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.

Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.

Read again and sound out the big words.

I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.

He will twist data to fit his thesis.

 

[Silhouette]

This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.

He will twist data to fit his thesis.

Jake, NEWSFLASH: Look at the top of this page at the poll. Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it. That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves. ie: democratic rule.

Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there. That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.

......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?

 

[RKMBrown]

This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.

He will twist data to fit his thesis.

Jake, NEWSFLASH: Look at the top of this page at the poll. Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it. That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves. ie: democratic rule.

Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there. That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.

......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?

Liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.

He will twist data to fit his thesis.

Jake, NEWSFLASH: Look at the top of this page at the poll. Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it. That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves. ie: democratic rule.

Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there. That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.

......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?

(1) No one cares what the dim bulbs think. Windsor is not what you hoped it would be.

(2) Newsflash for Sil: Sotomayor granted the final stay for Utah as she builds consensus in the courts across the country for marriage equality.

(3) HL was a decision to protect a certain group of people's business right under very particular and prescribed circumstances, not to prevent behaviors themselves.

(4) You can't add is your problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is not a deliberate liar, I don't think, about the OP: she truly believes what she is saying.

I do believe she is cognitively damaged because of unwise ****** behavior choices.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

No they didn't.

The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives. The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals. The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right? It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.


As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock. The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law. The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.



>>>>

 

[brandonisi]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No. So long as gay couples do not attempt to force a church into marrying them, they're not forcing their "lifestyle" (I hate that term) down their throats. So, until this becomes an issue (and it hopefully wont), churches and religious people who claim "the gay agenda" (something I never got a copy of, apparently) is being forced upon them are being dramatic.

 

[Silhouette]

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

No they didn't.

The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives. The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals. The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right? It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.


As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock. The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law. The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.



>>>>

Trying to pretend that you don't understand how "same or similar" precedent law works again are you?

Then I could just as easily say that because Lawrence v Texas was a win for sodomy, no future extrapolations can be taken from it to advance gay marriage or any other gay agenda item, right? Nor could that be done with Loving v Virginia, right?

Let me guess, suddenly in those cases any number of twists and machinations can be applied to forward the gay agenda?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

No they didn't.

The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives. The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals. The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right? It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.


As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock. The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law. The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.



>>>>

Trying to pretend that you don't understand how "same or similar" precedent law works again are you?

Then I could just as easily say that because Lawrence v Texas was a win for sodomy, no future extrapolations can be taken from it to advance gay marriage or any other gay agenda item, right? Nor could that be done with Loving v Virginia, right?

Let me guess, suddenly in those cases any number of twists and machinations can be applied to forward the gay agenda?

Same or similar precedent applies to like situations.

Lawrence was a case based on State law and so had application as to what other States can or cannot do.

Hobby Lobby is a case based on Federal law and it's applicable to what States can or cannot do.




You realize there are 20+ States that required (and did before ObamaCare) employers to have health insurance and provide contraceptive coverage (specific vary by State) and that the HL case didn't change those laws right? The HL case was decided based on the Federal RFRA which is not applicable to the States.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil doesn't get it, ww, because she can't cognitively understand it.

Something happened, I don't know what, and don't want to know.

But her perception of what is happening legally and cuturally is sieved.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil doesn't get it, ww, because she can't cognitively understand it.

Something happened, I don't know what, and don't want to know.

But her perception of what is happening legally and cuturally is sieved.

So then if that was true, you wouldn't need to keep batting back what I say here over and over and over again because you'd feel confident that, without a word, my interpretation would go down in the courts as a "fail".

Yet here you are, nervously beating back what I'm talking about. And so I conclude you're lying about your certainty. We have Windsor and Hobby Lobby as examples of what has you shaking in your boots that old Sil might have a point... To clear up any further doubt, just read the results of the poll at the top of the page...

 

[JakeStarkey]

85% loony vote equal loony vote. When dealing with folks like you who are delusional, the guidance is always to keep repeating, "Sil, no, that is not rational, this is what is rational."

Windsor, Sil, is not what you think it is; we have been over and over it, and you are still wrong.

HL is about abortifacents not marriage equality. Focus, Sil, focus.

 

[Gadawg73]

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


>>>>

The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.

Define religious test... pretty vague.

Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.

I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way.
Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.

 

[Silhouette]

85% loony vote equal loony vote. When dealing with folks like you who are delusional, the guidance is always to keep repeating, "Sil, no, that is not rational, this is what is rational."

Windsor, Sil, is not what you think it is; we have been over and over it, and you are still wrong.

HL is about abortifacents not marriage equality. Focus, Sil, focus.

So the overwhelming majority who believes these people shouldn't be able to use a loophole via marriage to legally adopt are "looney"? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Look at you, trying to cover for their bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.



Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.

Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.

Read again and sound out the big words.

I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.

I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context". The bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful

There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.

 

[RKMBrown]

The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.

Define religious test... pretty vague.

Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.

I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way.
Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.

So the socialists pray to government as their god. Does that mean government should be kept out of government?

 

[Seawytch]

Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.

Read again and sound out the big words.

I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.

I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context". The bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful

There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.

You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.

And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.

 

[Silhouette]

You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.

And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.

Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.

 

[Gadawg73]

Define religious test... pretty vague.

Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.

I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way.
Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.

So the socialists pray to government as their god. Does that mean government should be kept out of government?

Nothing to do with praying. Some people pray to Democrats or Republicans as their god also. So what? Freedom of religion is far different than religion in government.