*wondering how Jay would feel about all those businesses, if, instead of it being gays and lesbians they wanted to discriminate against, the owners wanted to discriminate against women, African-Americans, Hispanics or interracial couples.*
All of which has happened in the past. In my lifetime.
Of course, to hear my gay and lesbian friends talk, they wouldn't want to take your church for the wedding or buy at your Christian-owned bakery. They know when they're not wanted. What's to say the church wouldn't sabotage the wedding it believes is wrong? Or the "Christian" baker might spit in the cake as it's being made?
I agree, The whole marriage debate is framed incorrectly in order to cause division.
Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a natural construct ordained by the Author of reality. We CANNOT redefine it. The problem is that in a corporatist/socialist state, marriage is a legal contract created by the state. This should not be. Marriage is defined by God and enacted by the church, not the state. Eliminate the income tax, social(ist) benefits, etc. and the state would have no business with marriage.
In the United States, marriage is a legal contract under our system of government. In the past, good religious people have stopped slaves (as property) and interracial couple from marrying. (Do I have to quote the appropriate passage from Loving v. Virginia to show you how the racist judge paraphrased his understanding of the Bible to defend his anti-miscegenation views?) There are plenty of people in this land who get married because of the legal and social benefits and they are NOT DOING IT because your religious belief says so. They should NOT be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs to get married. Those same religious beliefs, I have to tiresomely remind you, kept slaves and people of different races from marrying under the law.
I have no dog in this hunt as I'm not married and don't have any intention of getting married, nor do I get all the goodies from being married. However, my parents' California marriage was illegal in the South until 1967 and I am just a tiny bit sensitive to the fact that Good Christian People have had (and some still do have) a problem with interracial marriage. I'm seeing a tiresome repeat of the discussions that took place when I was a kid. It's too bad we didn't have an Internet then so we could pull up all the sermonizing then about race-mixing and see how it sounds now.
Charge them with assault and add hate crime to make the charges tougher. Sue the church for emotional distress, and whatever other injury the lawyers and advocates can dream up. Have the government declare them to not have 'legitmate religious values' and remve their tax exemption. Charge the pastor of the congregation with violating the civil rights of the couple. Essentially victory by intemidation, because few would actually mount a prolonged defense, and most would bow to the pressure. We have yet to see what they will stir up against the Christian community. Did you not think that Jesus was serious when He said, "As it was in the Days of Sodom"? Have you considered just how loathsome Sodom must have truly been? We have not even begun to see the beginning. When was the last time all the men in your city attempted to rape your pastor because he would not send out his guests for them to gangrape the whole night through?
I apologize if the last question is graphic, but it is right there in your Bible.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
In the United States, marriage is a legal contract under our system of government. In the past, good religious people have stopped slaves (as property) and interracial couple from marrying. (Do I have to quote the appropriate passage from Loving v. Virginia to show you how the racist judge paraphrased his understanding of the Bible to defend his anti-miscegenation views?) There are plenty of people in this land who get married because of the legal and social benefits and they are NOT DOING IT because your religious belief says so. They should NOT be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs to get married. Those same religious beliefs, I have to tiresomely remind you, kept slaves and people of different races from marrying under the law.
I have no dog in this hunt as I'm not married and don't have any intention of getting married, nor do I get all the goodies from being married. However, my parents' California marriage was illegal in the South until 1967 and I am just a tiny bit sensitive to the fact that Good Christian People have had (and some still do have) a problem with interracial marriage. I'm seeing a tiresome repeat of the discussions that took place when I was a kid. It's too bad we didn't have an Internet then so we could pull up all the sermonizing then about race-mixing and see how it sounds now.
In the United States, marriage is a legal contract under our system of government. In the past, good religious people have stopped slaves (as property) and interracial couple from marrying. (Do I have to quote the appropriate passage from Loving v. Virginia to show you how the racist judge paraphrased his understanding of the Bible to defend his anti-miscegenation views?) There are plenty of people in this land who get married because of the legal and social benefits and they are NOT DOING IT because your religious belief says so. They should NOT be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs to get married. Those same religious beliefs, I have to tiresomely remind you, kept slaves and people of different races from marrying under the law.
I have no dog in this hunt as I'm not married and don't have any intention of getting married, nor do I get all the goodies from being married. However, my parents' California marriage was illegal in the South until 1967 and I am just a tiny bit sensitive to the fact that Good Christian People have had (and some still do have) a problem with interracial marriage. I'm seeing a tiresome repeat of the discussions that took place when I was a kid. It's too bad we didn't have an Internet then so we could pull up all the sermonizing then about race-mixing and see how it sounds now.
It's too bad we didn't have the Internet when we colonized this country at the beginning. Samuel Adams would have loved talking to Ben Franklin in France instead of sailing over there.
Thank you for expressing your views here. I see where you are coming from. And yes, I would love to read the passage from Loving v. Virginia. I've never read it and would be interested in learning more history and looking closely at a mindset.
And, BTW, as I see you are sensitive, I hope you don't take that out on people for generations to come. My family has a plaque displayed in honor of our service to the Underground Railroad in San Antonio, Texas.
__________________
Last edited by Pressing-On; 03-20-2013 at 11:42 AM.
Ferd, as a former attorney, I am going to tell you that no church can be compelled to turn over their property for a use that is inimical to its belief system--in general.
There are exceptions. For example, if the church is renting out a government-owned building for church services, it cannot object if the governmental authority also chooses to rent out to gay and lesbian couples for marriage ceremonies. There could be other governmental entanglements that may oblige a church to allow its property to be used for marriages it objects to. But that's the key--GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENTS. If you don't have government entanglements, you have nothing to worry about.
It would require repealing the First Amendment to get to the point you're talking about. Did you not read the examples I gave? Churches can't be forced to marry interracial couples, or couples who do not meet the ecclesiastical standards set by the church. I live in a city with a Mormon temple; I can't tell the Mormons I want to get married in their temple, it'd absolutely not be allowed since I'm not Mormon.
I don't want to be argumentative about this, but I am tired of these scare stories. If preachers can turn down interracial couples, and all that happens is some (IMHO justified) bad press, the same thing can and will happen with gay marriage. And, to be blunt, we have gay marriage in eight states--can you name a single church where there is no government entanglement that has been forced to perform a gay marriage against its will? Please, bring it forward. I want to see it. I am tired of these rumors and (to be blunt) flat-out lies.
Sorry SR. but no matter how much legal talkytalk you use, you cannot undo what has already been done. There are dozens of examples of churches/individuals who have refused gay ceremonies that have been successfully sued.
If a church rents to the public, they will not be able to refuse gay couples. period.
Now if they only provide marriage services/access to their building to MEMBERS of the church, or can prove they only perform marriages to those who are adherants to thier particular set of beliefs, I agree they have legal standing to refuse all others.
but open that door one crack, and rent out to some couple who are not christian, and they will never again be able to refuse a gay couple who wishes to rent from them.
That is simple reality. it has already been established in the courts. I dont care how many law degrees you have.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Sorry SR. but no matter how much legal talkytalk you use, you cannot undo what has already been done. There are dozens of examples of churches/individuals who have refused gay ceremonies that have been successfully sued.
If a church rents to the public, they will not be able to refuse gay couples. period.
Now if they only provide marriage services/access to their building to MEMBERS of the church, or can prove they only perform marriages to those who are adherants to thier particular set of beliefs, I agree they have legal standing to refuse all others.
but open that door one crack, and rent out to some couple who are not christian, and they will never again be able to refuse a gay couple who wishes to rent from them.
That is simple reality. it has already been established in the courts. I dont care how many law degrees you have.
Sorry, Ferd, I'm not letting you off the hook. You say there are cases, BRING THEM FORWARD. Don't spread rumor without something to BACK IT UP.
Not cake bakers. Not business people. Churches with their own buildings. And yeah, if the church goes into business** by renting to people outside the church, then yeah, there could be a problem. But let's see the cases, OK?
**And if they're renting the building out to non-members, I hope they're complying with all applicable tax laws in declaring the income, etc., etc. I really got tired of having to pay higher property taxes when I lived in Utah because the dominant religion had so much property off the tax rolls.
Sorry, Ferd, I'm not letting you off the hook. You say there are cases, BRING THEM FORWARD. Don't spread rumor without something to BACK IT UP.
Not cake bakers. Not business people. Churches with their own buildings. And yeah, if the church goes into business** by renting to people outside the church, then yeah, there could be a problem. But let's see the cases, OK?
**And if they're renting the building out to non-members, I hope they're complying with all applicable tax laws in declaring the income, etc., etc. I really got tired of having to pay higher property taxes when I lived in Utah because the dominant religion had so much property off the tax rolls.
so you arent letting me off the hook but you agree with me so I dont need to give you case law.
geez. I think you like to argue to hear yourself.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Sorry SR. but no matter how much legal talkytalk you use, you cannot undo what has already been done. There are dozens of examples of churches/individuals who have refused gay ceremonies that have been successfully sued.
If a church rents to the public, they will not be able to refuse gay couples. period.
Now if they only provide marriage services/access to their building to MEMBERS of the church, or can prove they only perform marriages to those who are adherants to thier particular set of beliefs, I agree they have legal standing to refuse all others.
but open that door one crack, and rent out to some couple who are not christian, and they will never again be able to refuse a gay couple who wishes to rent from them.
That is simple reality. it has already been established in the courts. I dont care how many law degrees you have.
Ferd,
Can you cite the cases where churches have been successfully sued for refusing to rent their buildings out for gay weddings?
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Hutchinson, Kasnas is a simple one to find, though it was passed by the city counsel and as gay marriage is not legal there, the matter might be sidelined, until the Supreme court overturns the will of the people in those states with bans, and then it is mire than pertainent. Enter 'Hutchinson approves gay' in the search bar, then click on the fox news tab, and it is right there for all to see. I would pozt the link, however I have not figured out the cut and paste process on my nook.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
Linear Mode
