Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[Missourian]

Gee, I notice NONE of these legal examples have ANYthing to do with a Church being forced to perform a religious Sacrament.


Some guy named Stern has projected some of legal "what ifs?" based on some law suits involving gay people as if individual minorities never sued anybody before this whole "radical" marriage agenda swept across the nation...? Notice the legal marital status of these individuals has nothing to do with any of the legalities in these cases?

People can ATTEMPT to sue each other for all sorts of discrimination, sometimes there is a valid legal argument and sometimes there is none. Citing individual legal cases and individual emotional reactions DOES NOT constitute an "extreme" gay marriage agenda.

Wow, how narrowly can you focus that laser beam?

If the government is forcing me to violate my religious tenets, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon freedom of religious sacraments." It also doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws that infringe religious freedom except while you're at work".

My laser beam is focused on the legalities of Gay Marriage/Civil Union.


My posts in this thread, to Immie and now you, are focused on dispelling the notion of this new fallacy that gays are trying to force Churches to "Marry" them.

And they will...they will demand to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country, using this philosophy.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

 

[CurveLight]

The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.


During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.


When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."


The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.


"We were crushed," she says. "I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful."


Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. "We were so stunned, we didn't know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done," she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.


"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

I'm familiar with this case as well and the problem is the church rented it out to the general public. When you enter the public arena you have to follow public law. There would have been no case for discrimination if the church had not offered the pavilion to the public. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Sunni Man]

How can you hate gays more than you love kids or accurate information?

So how is explaining the nuances to a child about the differences between a nasty homo and a sick pedophile going to protect my child as you suggest???

 

[CurveLight]

I'll postulate the same hypothetical situation I offered to Dogbert.



If you, a pro-choice print shop owner, refuse to print pro-life material for my church group, should I have the right to sue you for violating my religious civil rights?


Or taking it a step further:

If I, a conservative photographer, refuse to take pictures for an ultra-liberal PACs ad campaign, should they be able to sue me for discriminating on the basis of political orientation?

Yes and yes. When you offer public services you are obligated to follow public law. The pavilion and Elane photog cases are exactly the same and neither have anything to do with forcing churches to marry anyone.

You guys keep providing examples of homophobes being held accountable to public...PUBLIC......anti-discrimination laws and you try to twist those into church persecution. This is exactly the same bullshit tactic that gets used by assholes at Mass Resistance. They actually lied to people to get them to sign a petition by telling them it was to "repeal" the blue laws when in fact it was a petition to ban gay marriage.

Do the anti gay marriage crowds have any sense of honesty? Hypocrisy is way too far gone, but couldn't they at least feign trying to be honest?

 

[Immanuel]

Prove it

Look at California. San Francisco to be exact.

Look at Massechuesetts.

This entire debate is about making marriage available to all.

Some links to the issue:

New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

ALLorNotAtAll.org » Blog Archiv » Protest at Anti-Gay Pastor Rick Warren’s Church

We are going to hold a peaceful protest with a positive tone outside his church the Sunday before he delivers the invocation in D.C. to let him know that we are not some radical, crazy fringe group that is merely looking to be appeased. It is time for us to go stand outside his homophobic bubble and show him the harm that he is causing. Show him that he cannot use religion and the Bible as a weapon. Show him that we are not child molesters or polygamists and that we are not looking to marry our pets. Show him that we are also kind, decent humans who deserve the same treatment in the eyes of the law as every member of his congregation.

This is about forcing churches to succumb to the pressure and to accept and marry gays in church. This is a war waged against the doctrine of the church and nothing short of complete acceptance will suffice to appease the activists.

Immie

With the call for "debating honestly" I quoted this post to show the lack of honesty via making a claim about gays then falling flat ass down canary canyon when you can't support it. Then you ask others if they can enter a debate and do it honestly? Your conspiracy theory about gays is simply ridiculous and if it wasn't you'd be able to support your claims.


You also seem to be woefully unaware there are Christian (and other) churches that do have ordained gays in the priesthood and will marry gays. Take your advice about being honest and apply it to yourself. Please.

I understand full well that there are Christian Churches that ordain gays and marry them as well.

No where did I state otherwise, nor have I condemned the gay community or the churches that reach out to the gay community. Quite honestly, I support those churchs' rights to do so and I am very glad that they exists. The Gospel is as valid for gays as it is for me.

I stated (and still fully believe) that there will be activists, aka extremists, that will not settle for compromise. That was the only point I made. I do not believe you have even read most of this thread, not that I can blame you as when you entered this part of the discussion it was already quite long. I can just as easily state that there will be religious rights extremists that will not accept the compromise either.

I have not proven my case, but neither have you, PPV, Bodecea or Valerie proven your side. But, neither have I given up on my attempts. This discussion is still ongoing. I'm open to any proof texts you should care to present to support your case.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

How can you hate gays more than you love kids or accurate information?

So how is explaining the nuances to a child about the differences between a nasty homo and a sick pedophile going to protect my child as you suggest???

I never suggested explaining the HUGE DIFFERENCES between gays and pedophiles to children.

 

[bodecea]

Ah, I love it how this story keeps popping up... You DO realize that the religious organization has a contract stating they could not discriminate in the usage/renting of that site

Credible Link?

(which, btw, is NOT a church nor a religious service place)?

May I call your attention again to the activist's quote:

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.

Apparently tax-exempt status was lost...for that property only. And rightfully so. As would have happened if they withheld use of that area to a black group, or Asian group, or Jewish group, or handicapped group, etc.

 

[bodecea]

Wow, how narrowly can you focus that laser beam?

If the government is forcing me to violate my religious tenets, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon freedom of religious sacraments." It also doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws that infringe religious freedom except while you're at work".

My laser beam is focused on the legalities of Gay Marriage/Civil Union.


My posts in this thread, to Immie and now you, are focused on dispelling the notion of this new fallacy that gays are trying to force Churches to "Marry" them.

And they will...they will demand to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country, using this philosophy.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

Just like interracial couples and interfaith couples successfully DEMAND to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country today?

 

[bodecea]

How can you hate gays more than you love kids or accurate information?

So how is explaining the nuances to a child about the differences between a nasty homo and a sick pedophile going to protect my child as you suggest???

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up segregationist signs and chanting.

 

[bodecea]

I'll postulate the same hypothetical situation I offered to Dogbert.



If you, a pro-choice print shop owner, refuse to print pro-life material for my church group, should I have the right to sue you for violating my religious civil rights?


Or taking it a step further:

If I, a conservative photographer, refuse to take pictures for an ultra-liberal PACs ad campaign, should they be able to sue me for discriminating on the basis of political orientation?

Yes and yes. When you offer public services you are obligated to follow public law. The pavilion and Elane photog cases are exactly the same and neither have anything to do with forcing churches to marry anyone.

You guys keep providing examples of homophobes being held accountable to public...PUBLIC......anti-discrimination laws and you try to twist those into church persecution. This is exactly the same bullshit tactic that gets used by assholes at Mass Resistance. They actually lied to people to get them to sign a petition by telling them it was to "repeal" the blue laws when in fact it was a petition to ban gay marriage.

Do the anti gay marriage crowds have any sense of honesty? Hypocrisy is way too far gone, but couldn't they at least feign trying to be honest?

We found here in CA that the religious crowd have no problem breaking that little Commandment against bearing false witness. No problem at all.

 

[Missourian]

My laser beam is focused on the legalities of Gay Marriage/Civil Union.


My posts in this thread, to Immie and now you, are focused on dispelling the notion of this new fallacy that gays are trying to force Churches to "Marry" them.

And they will...they will demand to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country, using this philosophy.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

Just like interracial couples and interfaith couples successfully DEMAND to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country today?

Again, there is a difference between race and sexual orientation.

You can't choose to stop being black or asian or hispanic or arab.

However you can choose who you have sex with.

 

[CurveLight]

Look at California. San Francisco to be exact.

Look at Massechuesetts.

This entire debate is about making marriage available to all.

Some links to the issue:

New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

ALLorNotAtAll.org » Blog Archiv » Protest at Anti-Gay Pastor Rick Warren’s Church



This is about forcing churches to succumb to the pressure and to accept and marry gays in church. This is a war waged against the doctrine of the church and nothing short of complete acceptance will suffice to appease the activists.

Immie

With the call for "debating honestly" I quoted this post to show the lack of honesty via making a claim about gays then falling flat ass down canary canyon when you can't support it. Then you ask others if they can enter a debate and do it honestly? Your conspiracy theory about gays is simply ridiculous and if it wasn't you'd be able to support your claims.


You also seem to be woefully unaware there are Christian (and other) churches that do have ordained gays in the priesthood and will marry gays. Take your advice about being honest and apply it to yourself. Please.

I understand full well that there are Christian Churches that ordain gays and marry them as well.

No where did I state otherwise, nor have I condemned the gay community or the churches that reach out to the gay community. Quite honestly, I support those churchs' rights to do so and I am very glad that they exists. The Gospel is as valid for gays as it is for me.

I stated (and still fully believe) that there will be activists, aka extremists, that will not settle for compromise. That was the only point I made. I do not believe you have even read most of this thread, not that I can blame you as when you entered this part of the discussion it was already quite long. I can just as easily state that there will be religious rights extremists that will not accept the compromise either.

I have not proven my case, but neither have you, PPV, Bodecea or Valerie proven your side. But, neither have I given up on my attempts. This discussion is still ongoing. I'm open to any proof texts you should care to present to support your case.

Immie

Now you are changing your claim midstream. First you claimed there is a "war" by gays against churches. When pushed and proven to be unable to support that claim you take a step back to say "some extremists."

As for saying I have not proven my case.........my case is your paranoid theory about gays waging a "war" against churches is overblown hyperbolic homophobic coulter classic fear smear. The sheer absence of attacks on churches in MA is enough evidence. Try to remember, when you make a claim it is up to you to support that claim. Trying to say your claim is correct on the condition of others not proving a negative does not solidify your claim as positive.

 

[Father Time]

Ah, I love it how this story keeps popping up... You DO realize that the religious organization has a contract stating they could not discriminate in the usage/renting of that site

Credible Link?

(which, btw, is NOT a church nor a religious service place)?

May I call your attention again to the activist's quote:

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

How's this new? You can't discriminate against someone's race or gender even if you're doing so for religious reasons. Add sexual orientation to the list and somehow the rules should apply differently?

 

[Immanuel]

With the call for "debating honestly" I quoted this post to show the lack of honesty via making a claim about gays then falling flat ass down canary canyon when you can't support it. Then you ask others if they can enter a debate and do it honestly? Your conspiracy theory about gays is simply ridiculous and if it wasn't you'd be able to support your claims.


You also seem to be woefully unaware there are Christian (and other) churches that do have ordained gays in the priesthood and will marry gays. Take your advice about being honest and apply it to yourself. Please.

I understand full well that there are Christian Churches that ordain gays and marry them as well.

No where did I state otherwise, nor have I condemned the gay community or the churches that reach out to the gay community. Quite honestly, I support those churchs' rights to do so and I am very glad that they exists. The Gospel is as valid for gays as it is for me.

I stated (and still fully believe) that there will be activists, aka extremists, that will not settle for compromise. That was the only point I made. I do not believe you have even read most of this thread, not that I can blame you as when you entered this part of the discussion it was already quite long. I can just as easily state that there will be religious rights extremists that will not accept the compromise either.

I have not proven my case, but neither have you, PPV, Bodecea or Valerie proven your side. But, neither have I given up on my attempts. This discussion is still ongoing. I'm open to any proof texts you should care to present to support your case.

Immie

Now you are changing your claim midstream. First you claimed there is a "war" by gays against churches. When pushed and proven to be unable to support that claim you take a step back to say "some extremists."

As for saying I have not proven my case.........my case is your paranoid theory about gays waging a "war" against churches is overblown hyperbolic homophobic coulter classic fear smear. The sheer absence of attacks on churches in MA is enough evidence. Try to remember, when you make a claim it is up to you to support that claim. Trying to say your claim is correct on the condition of others not proving a negative does not solidify your claim as positive.

Maybe before you make such wild accusations you should go back and read my first few posts in this thread, because I did not start out saying there was a war by gays against churches. I started out very clearly stating that most people straight and gay alike would accept a civil union compromise, but that there would be extremist who would not.

Since you clearly have not read the thread, here is my first post:

I don't think anyone is pushing to force gay marriage on churches. It is the legal and societal impacts of marriage that gays seek. The legal rights as well as the legal acknowledgement and acceptance of their relationship.
This being the case, the government should assign civil unions to all couples. Let gays find a religion that will marry them.

Good post.

I think the vast majority of people both homosexual and straight would agree that civil unions are a good compromise.

Unfortunately, I also think that if "marriage" were the term and/or the civil union law was not specifically written declaring that no church would be required to marry anyone, I think that it would not be long before someone attempted to force the church to marry them.

It would end up just like the Boy Scouts in the long run. We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Immie

And my second, I very clearly stated that I was speaking of activists, not the vast majority of gays:

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?

We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Churches have been and will continue to be able to discriminate in who they wish to marry, for whatever reason.
Your commentary on that is a

You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie

Immie

 

[Father Time]

Wow, how narrowly can you focus that laser beam?

If the government is forcing me to violate my religious tenets, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon freedom of religious sacraments." It also doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws that infringe religious freedom except while you're at work".

My laser beam is focused on the legalities of Gay Marriage/Civil Union.


My posts in this thread, to Immie and now you, are focused on dispelling the notion of this new fallacy that gays are trying to force Churches to "Marry" them.

And they will...they will demand to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country, using this philosophy.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

And they'll be disappointed. Seriously you can't even force a church to marry a biracial couple if they don't want to.

 

[Sunni Man]

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up....... signs and chanting.

I don't ever "drag my children" anywhere.

But I have taken my kids to various events and "let" them hold up signs as a form of protest.

It was an object lesson in participative democracy that I wish more parents would involve their kids in.

 

[Father Time]

I'll postulate the same hypothetical situation I offered to Dogbert.



If you, a pro-choice print shop owner, refuse to print pro-life material for my church group, should I have the right to sue you for violating my religious civil rights?


Or taking it a step further:

If I, a conservative photographer, refuse to take pictures for an ultra-liberal PACs ad campaign, should they be able to sue me for discriminating on the basis of political orientation?

Yes and yes. When you offer public services you are obligated to follow public law. The pavilion and Elane photog cases are exactly the same and neither have anything to do with forcing churches to marry anyone.

You guys keep providing examples of homophobes being held accountable to public...PUBLIC......anti-discrimination laws and you try to twist those into church persecution. This is exactly the same bullshit tactic that gets used by assholes at Mass Resistance. They actually lied to people to get them to sign a petition by telling them it was to "repeal" the blue laws when in fact it was a petition to ban gay marriage.

Do the anti gay marriage crowds have any sense of honesty? Hypocrisy is way too far gone, but couldn't they at least feign trying to be honest?

Remember this when the groups try to claim they stand for any kind of morals.

 

[CurveLight]

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up....... signs and chanting.

I don't ever "drag my children" anywhere.

But I have taken my kids to various events and "let" them hold up signs as a form of protest.

It was an object lesson in participative democracy that I wish more parents would involve their kids in.

From an outhouse psychological assessment I gotta go with.....bullshit. Judging by your communication I feel pretty confident in saying you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between your kids participating out of coercion versus genuine motivation.

 

[Sunni Man]

From an outhouse psychological assessment I gotta go with.....bullshit. Judging by your communication I feel pretty confident in saying you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between your kids participating out of coercion versus genuine motivation.

Well as a degreed mental health professional in the real world.

I can assure you that my kids are given the option of not participating.

I am teaching them to stand up for their beliefs and that every individuals voice and vote counts.

What is wrong with that????

 

[Immanuel]

From an outhouse psychological assessment I gotta go with.....bullshit. Judging by your communication I feel pretty confident in saying you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between your kids participating out of coercion versus genuine motivation.

Well as a degreed mental health professional in the real world.

I can assure you that my kids are given the option of not participating.

I am teaching them to stand up for their beliefs and that every individuals voice and vote counts.

What is wrong with that????

Every individual's vote counts? Who the hell are you trying to kid? We can't even trust the politicians who count the votes to give us truthful counts! Don't try to convince me that my vote counts... except at home where of the five of us, I have five votes and everyone else, my wife included, have 1.