Swedish LGBT Writer Demands Mosques Welcome and Include Homosexuals

[para bellum]

Seems like another commie shows up everyday.

Lol. That's me?

 

[para bellum]

Yet you think the government should force Churches to marry same sex people even if the Church doesn't want to.

Read my post #54 again...

 

[martybegan]

Read my post #54 again...

No, you just want to remove their non-profit status because of it, which is back door coercion.

 

[para bellum]

No, you just want to remove their non-profit status because of it, which is back door coercion.

I would remove their non-profit status if they violate public law, yes. If they want to be an exclusive club, they should organize under the appropriate classification.

I also happen to think that the Catholic Church, given it's own history of homosexuality and abuse by the clergy, and compounded by at least decades of coverups by the Vatican, is probably the last organization on earth who should be moralizing to anyone.

But that's just my natural dislike for hypocrisy. I am just glad we are not a theocracy where men interpret a holy book and impose their moral codes on everyone else.

 

[martybegan]

I would remove their non-profit status if they violate public law, yes. If they want to be an exclusive club, they should organize under the appropriate classification.

I also happen to think that the Catholic Church, given it's own history of homosexuality and abuse by the clergy, and compounded by at least decades of coverups by the Vatican, is probably the last organization on earth who should be moralizing to anyone.

But that's just my natural dislike for hypocrisy. I am just glad we are not a theocracy where men interpret a holy book and impose their moral codes on everyone else.

They are under the proper classification, non profit.

 

[para bellum]

They are under the proper classification, non profit.

Then they are obliged to adhere to the applicable public law. Which applicability the courts, and ONLY the courts, may determine.

The churches are free regardless, to advocate for changes to the law by petitioning the Gov't for redress of their grievances as per the first.

 

[martybegan]

Then they are obliged to adhere to the applicable public law. Which applicability the courts, and ONLY the courts, may determine.

The churches are free regardless, to advocate for changes to the law by petitioning the Gov't for redress of their grievances as per the first.

Public law cannot interfere with free exercise.

 

[para bellum]

Public law cannot interfere with free exercise.

You just argue in circles. The courts determine what is a violation of the Constitution, not you or me or the Pope.

 

[martybegan]

You just argue in circles. The courts determine what is a violation of the Constitution, not you or me or the Pope.

Danielpalos is this you?

 

[para bellum]

Danielpalos is this you?

I don't know what that means.

I assume it's some other member you had a problem with, but I'm just guessing...

 

[martybegan]

I don't know what that means.

I assume it's some other member you had a problem with, but I'm just guessing...

 

[miketx]

Read my post #54 again...

Classic left babble! Why is it they all babble the same?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Churches can say whatever they want, provided that "the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."

The same restriction applies to mosques, synagogues, temples, whatever.

That was the same policy as in the old Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, and the same policy even now in China.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are free to live your life as you choose…

So long as I don't choose to belong to a religion that upholds basic standards or morality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No one is free to violate public law.

Except the First Amendment, it seems. You're perfectly fine with allowing and even demanding that a corrupt Godless government should violate that law with impunity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is true, and why we have courts to adjudicate such matters.

No court has the authority to override the Constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Read my post #54 again...

See Post 125.

 

[para bellum]

Classic left babble! Why is it they all babble the same?

I am very surprised to learn that I am a leftist.

I am a lifelong republican who has voted for the GOP in 10 Presidential elections, and voted twice for Trump. I consider myself conservative on matters fiscal and defense/national security, and I think politics should still end at the water's edge.

I consider myself socially libertarian- meaning to each his own, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to go about their day unmolested.

I have no love for absolutism from either side, and I confess places like this forum do make me question whether or not the republican party is still fairly representative of my worldview. It's a lot more ideologically driven today that it's been in the past.

 

[para bellum]

No court has the authority to override the Constitution.

No one is claiming otherwise.

If the Legislature passes a law that says churches cannot exclude gay people, the courts are free to strike that law on First Amendment grounds.

That is exactly how it should be. Legislators do not much care for the Constitution, and pass unconstitutional laws all the time. We do not rely on legislators to uphold the Constitution, we rely on the courts.

If the courts rule that the law is not unconstitutional, then the churches should follow that ruling, and advocate for changes to the law (as is their right) through the legislative or Constitutional amendment processes.