# Wedding Chapel may be forced to perform same sex weddings



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ters-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

I think this is an interesting situation and have started another thread to discuss it.

This is a for profit wedding chapel run by Christian pastors.

I personally don't think they should have to perform the weddings my self because of their religion. I do however think there is a case for them having to allow the weddings to take place in the business.

It has lots of twists and turns and how it plays out in the court is something I will be watching.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Amazing, another thing the lefties said would never happen. Make no mistake, the ultimate goal is not just that you allow actions or life styles that you disagree with. They want to force you to accept, approve, enable and even view as superior. Some very hard decisions are going to have to be made pretty quickly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Actually no one ever said this would not happen. This is two pastors operating a wedding chapel not a church but don't let the truth stop you spreading untruths.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Actually no one ever said this would not happen. This is two pastors operating a wedding chapel not a church but don't let the truth stop you spreading untruths.


Thing being it is a private owned business even though the door is open off the street for people to walk in . When I owned my business if anyone hinted that I had to do one thing against my choosing I tossed them pronto . Same if I owned a business now and the smoking laws you don't agree with my smoking keep your but out .Should you not be able to read someone will be more than happy to show you the road :flame:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I see nothing on their website that says they only perform Christians weddings. I would think that is a nail in their coffin. Either they only perform Christian weddings or they will lose in court.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well the do limit marriages to heterosexuals only....that could be a clue. To attempt to forced someone to sin kinda impacts their religious freedoms. But oh well it's for your cause.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I see nothing on their website that says they only perform Christians weddings. I would think that is a nail in their coffin. Either they only perform Christian weddings or they will lose in court.


Some never give up on changing the meaning of the word marriage ,they were in business when the meaning of one man one woman as the only definition of marriage being the normal . Some still hold this view as anything else is having a depraved mind :runforhills:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well the do limit marriages to heterosexuals only....that could be a clue. To attempt to forced someone to sin kinda impacts their religious freedoms. But oh well it's for your cause.


Get off this is my cause bit. I believe in no discrimination. Either you take a stand and only stick with your religious views or you have a for profit business that marries anyone. I will support you then either way. I won't support this half in half out position.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I suppose this will come down to whether the court considers the wedding chapel to be a public accommodation or not. Seems like it is from it's for-profit status, but I can't say with confidence.

This isn't going to have widespread impact. The situation only exists because of a specific local law that doesn't exist everywhere.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Get off this is my cause bit. I believe in no discrimination. Either you take a stand and only stick with your religious views or you have a for profit business that marries anyone. I will support you then either way. I won't support this half in half out position.


I beg to differ you do promote discrimination against a business owner running his business as he sees fit :drum:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I beg to differ you do promote discrimination against a business owner running his business as he sees fit :drum:


The question is not whether it's a business or not. Other businesses that are considered public accommodations are already barred from discrimination by federal law, such as restaurants and hotels. The question here is whether this particular business can be considered a public accommodation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I beg to differ you do promote discrimination against a business owner running his business as he sees fit :drum:


Play that tune all you want. I disagree.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So are Christian books store business discriminating by sell only Christian books. Is the Christian channel in violation for airing only Christian theme material.

Do porno shops discriminate by not having a children section

I


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The question is not whether it's a business or not. Other businesses that are considered public accommodations are barred from discrimination by federal law, such as restaurants and hotels. The question here is whether this particular business can be considered a public accommodation.


Even those you mention can for some reasons refuse service . Only real public accommodations are those afforded by the Gov .such as court house restrooms :grin: If I pay the help,rent,electric,ect I make the rules .

A mob should done went to the mayors office and tar and feathered the whole lot of those depraved officials :grin:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Even those you mention can for some reasons refuse service . Only real public accommodations are those afforded by the Gov .such as court house restrooms :grin: If I pay the help,rent,electric,ect I make the rules .


No. That would be a violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

_Title II of the Act requires that restaurants, hotels, theaters, sales or rental services, health care providers, transportation hubs, and other service venues afford to all persons "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, [and] facilities" without discrimination or segregation._
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/long-road/accommodations.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> So are Christian books store business discriminating by sell only Christian books. Is the Christian channel in violation for airing only Christian theme material.
> 
> Do porno shops discriminate by not having a children section
> 
> I


I think I made this very point earlier. If this wedding chapel only offers weddings conforming to their religion then they would be within their rights to not offer same sex marriages. I would stand behind them in court and even put money towards their defense.

If however they marry people with no religious ceremony, then they are not sticking to their religious convictions and just might lose.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Actually no one ever said this would not happen. This is two pastors operating a wedding chapel not a church but don't let the truth stop you spreading untruths.


The religious convictions of the owners of that chapel are the issue. Doesn't matter if it's a organized church or a business.

The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. It does not specify "only if it's a church".

The definition of a church is "a body of believers". In the Bible, whenever God referred to the church He was referring to believers. "The church" is not a building. Some may meet in a building, but the church is made up of human beings who are free to practice their faith 24 hours a day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> The religious convictions of the owners of that chapel are the issue. Doesn't matter if it's a organized church or a business.
> 
> The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. It does not specify "only if it's a church".
> 
> The definition of a church is "a body of believers". In the Bible, whenever God referred to the church He was referring to believers. "The church" is not a building. Some may meet in a building, but the church is made up of human beings who are free to practice their faith 24 hours a day.


I agree. I don't think the ministers themselves should have to perform the ceremony at any time or for any reason. I do however don't think they could deny the use of the chapel to a same sex couple under the law as it.

I personally think that this is very different than baking a cake.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

my3boys said:


> The religious convictions of the owners of that chapel are the issue. Doesn't matter if it's a organized church or a business.
> 
> The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. It does not specify "only if it's a church".


I don't doubt that they will bring up their religion as a defense, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a wedding chapel can be considered a public accommodation. If it is then they can't discriminate.

For example, a motel is a public accommodation. A motel owner can't refuse a room to a gay couple, even if he suspects that the gay couple is going to probably do acts that he morally disagrees with. Regardless of his religious beliefs, he still has to rent the room to the gay couple.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree. I don't think the ministers themselves should have to perform the ceremony at any time or for any reason. I do however don't think they could deny the use of the chapel to a same sex couple under the law as it.
> 
> I personally think that this is very different than baking a cake.


Who would perform the ceremony?

Forcing someone to let you use their business is no different than forcing them to let you use their home. Both are private property. As far as "public accommodation", it should be up to the owner(s) who they "accommodate".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> Who would perform the ceremony?


Justice of the peace?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't doubt that they will bring up their religion as a defense, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a wedding chapel can be considered a public accommodation. If it is then they can't discriminate.
> 
> For example, a motel is a public accommodation. A motel owner can't refuse a room to a gay couple, even if he suspects that the gay couple are going to probably do acts that he morally disagrees with. Regardless of his religious beliefs, he still has to rent the room to the gay couple.


Sorry, but I disagree with this too. If someone owns a hotel, inn, etc. they should not be forced to rent a room to gays. It's still their business, owned by them and operated in accordance with their faith.

The real problem here, when you get right down to it, is that the militant gays have hijacked the civil rights movement.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I don't doubt that they will bring up their religion as a defense, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a wedding chapel can be considered a public accommodation. If it is then they can't discriminate.
> 
> For example, a motel is a public accommodation. A motel owner can't refuse a room to a gay couple, even if he suspects that the gay couple are going to probably do acts that he morally disagrees with. Regardless of his religious beliefs, he still has to rent the room to the gay couple.


That is the tricky part. Religion. Where is the line? Who gets to decide when religion trumps the constitution? If a religions allows murder, does that trump the murder laws?

This is exactly why this discussion is very important. it is not cut and dry. I am against discrimination but I am also for religious freedom. I do however think there are lines that need to be drawn. My lines are different than others. How do we come to a consensus with out going against the constitution?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> Sorry, but I disagree with this too. If someone owns a hotel, inn, etc. they should not be forced to rent a room to gays. It's still their business, owned by them and operated in accordance with their faith.
> 
> The real problem here, when you get right down to it, is that the militant gays have hijacked the civil rights movement.


This is not just about gay people. It is about race, sex and discrimination.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

The gov needs to stay out of business. Let businesses decide what's right for them. The general public will vote with their dollars. The chapel should be able to turn down straight marriages if it so chooses. The government isn't doing too well at policing itself yet feels smart enough to dictate to us, go figure.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Do porno shops discriminate by not having a children section
> 
> I


Nice try for an argument, but that's illegal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

my3boys said:


> If someone owns a hotel, inn, etc. they should not be forced to rent a room to gays.


I think the law is pretty clear about that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

MDKatie said:


> Nice try for an argument, but that's illegal.


So was marrying a homosexual couple last month in Alaska too this month...but someone claimed discrimination. What respect that claim not spread. Common decency has eroded. How far it will go... one can only imagine.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Any anyway have you seen what sex ed in in school these days starting as young as 5 ?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> So was marrying a homosexual couple last month in Alaska too this month...but someone claimed discrimination. What respect that claim not spread. Common decency has eroded. How far it will go... one can only imagine.


Yeah, you're right...two consenting adults is totally the same as unconsenting minors.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Any anyway have you seen what sex ed in in school these days starting as young as 5 ?


Having 2 children in the public school system, I've seen what they teach. They didn't teach ANYTHING about sex ed until 5th grade, and in 5th grade they teach about the basics of the body and the changes that come with puberty, NOTHING about sex. I know conservatives love to throw around how the schools teach kids to be gay, but it's just not true.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No. That would be a violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> _Title II of the Act requires that restaurants, hotels, theaters, sales or rental services, health care providers, transportation hubs, and other service venues afford to all persons "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, [and] facilities" without discrimination or segregation._
> http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/long-road/accommodations.html


Don't work as planned every time though does it here on the job you can fire someone if you don't like the color of their shirt . No Vacancy signs come to mind sometimes too are they just screening patrons? 

Lot of feel good laws would adjust by a true free market like the smoking laws if you don't like smoke stay out . I'm sure if one looked there would be a depraved person somewhere that would preform a service for a woman\man and their horse :flame:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> This is not just about gay people. It is about race, sex and discrimination.


So is it about any discrimination or only about those that the government chooses to intervene?

This starts down the slope of the polygamous wanting to be married. what about the forced arranged marriage? The list goes on and on. The government wants you to think that _they_ will let you know which is right and wrong. Others want an individual to decide for themselves.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Actually no one ever said this would not happen. This is two pastors operating a wedding chapel not a church but don't let the truth stop you spreading untruths.


Always look forward to the "oh so convenient" revisionism of leftists.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So is it about any discrimination or only about those that the government chooses to intervene?
> 
> This starts down the slope of the polygamous wanting to be married. what about the forced arranged marriage? The list goes on and on. The government wants you to think that _they_ will let you know which is right and wrong. Others want an individual to decide for themselves.


Poly marriages are fine for me. Arranged marriages are fine as long as both parties are willing. Forced marriages are not fine in any situation.

No slippery slope. As long as the parties are of legal age and able to legally consent, I have no say in who gets married.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> Always look forward to the "oh so convenient" revisionism of leftists.


Sure spin it however you think will work for you but it is still not the truth.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Poly marriages are fine for me. Arranged marriages are fine as long as both parties are willing. Forced marriages are not fine in any situation.
> 
> No slippery slope. As long as the parties are of legal age and able to legally consent, I have no say in who gets married.


Ah, until they pass a law which says one party may be _forced_ into marriage. After all, why should someone's culture who allows and encourages that behavior be discriminated against?

So who sets legal age? What if another State decides the legal age is 10 years old? Should people be forced to marry them?

I see a huge slippery slope.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Ah, until they pass a law which says one party may be _forced_ into marriage. After all, why should someone's culture who allows and encourages that behavior be discriminated against?
> 
> So who sets legal age? What if another State decides the legal age is 10 years old? Should people be forced to marry them?
> 
> I see a huge slippery slope.


Anything can be contested in a court of law. Go ahead an slide on your slope. My opinion is different.

Maybe that is why the Republicans won't get anything done. too afraid of the slippery slope to do anything.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Ah, until they pass a law which says one party may be _forced_ into marriage. After all, why should someone's culture who allows and encourages that behavior be discriminated against?
> 
> So who sets legal age? What if another State decides the legal age is 10 years old? Should people be forced to marry them?
> 
> I see a huge slippery slope.


Now Now Mohamed married a 6 year old girl :runforhills:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Anything can be contested in a court of law. Go ahead an slide on your slope. My opinion is different.
> 
> Maybe that is why the Republicans won't get anything done. too afraid of the slippery slope to do anything.


That is the problem with striking down DOMA. Note there is no clear reason given: Is that that government does not have the ability to define marriage, or just that other didn't like how it was defined?

There are a lot of people who thought marriage had a given definition, there was no reason not to believe it. When questioned laws were passed to provide the definition. Now those laws are over-turned and new laws in place, all within a single generation time-span.

I suspect there will be many more cases which stretch the envelope. Things which we can't even think of because they are so remote at the current time they don't even register as a potential thought.

Personally for me this isn't about _what_ marriage is defined as, but who gets to make the definition. So look to a strong central government for a definition, others are secure enough to allow individuals to have their own beliefs and thoughts on the definition. I didn't like DOMA as it allowed for only a certain definition at the exclusion of others, however I don't like it because I don't think government _can_ define marriage, not that it defined it wrongly.

This is not the same as forcing people to accept or behave a certain way. My grandmother refused to allow my aunt inside her home, or to sit and eat a meal with her present at the table because her son had committed adultery with her against his first wife. That was her belief, and although I may have had no qualms with my aunt I don't think I should be able to force Grandma to suffer her presence. Live and let live.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Poly marriages are fine for me.


Sounds expensive. One man's social security benefit can replicated only so many times. If his SS benefit is $1500/month and has five wives, they will collectively receive $7,500/month plus Medicare.

There a reason why we don't allow plural marriages, and it's not because of morals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Sounds expensive. One man's social security benefit can replicated only so many times. If his SS benefit is $1500/month and has five wives, they will collectively receive $7,500/month plus Medicare.
> 
> There a reason why we don't allow plural marriages, and it's not because of morals.


One family one SS benefit. That does not seem to hard to me.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sounds expensive. One man's social security benefit can replicated only so many times. If his SS benefit is $1500/month and has five wives, they will collectively receive $7,500/month plus Medicare.
> 
> There a reason why we don't allow plural marriages, and it's not because of morals.


It's also why I think we do not allow incest based marriage. If a father marries his daughter there is no Estate Tax collected when he passes.

This is due to government laws being written with a certain definition of marriage. To change it you can't enact another law to redefine it, you have to go back to all which rely upon the definition and update them.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

These sorts of situations are local issues: either state or city laws that forbid discrimination. 

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected group or classification.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Oggie said:


> These sorts of situations are local issues: either state or city laws that forbid discrimination.
> 
> Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected group or classification.


Are you sure? Then how is Federal Courts striking down local same sex marriage bans?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Are you sure? Then how is Federal Courts striking down local same sex marriage bans?


That's a different issue.

This issue is about access to public facilities or accommodations.

Look into any case, so far, about denying business or services because of a stated or implied objection to someone's sexual orientation, and you will discover that a state or local law is the issue.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> This is not just about gay people. It is about race, sex and discrimination.


Nope, sorry. Skin color and gender are not behaviors. Sexual practices are. Totally different issues.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Having 2 children in the public school system, I've seen what they teach. They didn't teach ANYTHING about sex ed until 5th grade, and in 5th grade they teach about the basics of the body and the changes that come with puberty, NOTHING about sex. I know conservatives love to throw around how the schools teach kids to be gay, but it's just not true.


I don't know any conservative that thinks the government schools teach kids to be gay. They do think the schools teach that homosexuality is normal and healthy, which they do.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think the law is pretty clear about that.


And those laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I would think it comes down to whether the 2 pastors are also licensed/sworn as JPs, and part of the State. If they're not JPs, all their services would be Christian and therefor protected under the 1st Amendment. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Pastors being authorized to perform marriage ceremonies, but have always assumed they needed no government sanction to perform them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I would think it comes down to whether the 2 pastors are also licensed/sworn as JPs, and part of the State. If they're not JPs, all their services would be Christian and therefor protected under the 1st Amendment. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Pastors being authorized to perform marriage ceremonies, but have always assumed they needed no government sanction to perform them.


The issue is not whether they are public officials. The issue is that The Hitching Post is a for-profit business and not a church, and therefore subject to the laws of any other public accommodation. The question the court will need to decide is whether this particular business can be considered a public accommodation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> Nope, sorry. Skin color and gender are not behaviors. Sexual practices are. Totally different issues.


It is none of your business what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Getting married does not mean you have sex nor does it decree what sexual habits are allowed or disallowed between consenting adults.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected group or classification.


I think there is no realistic question that sexual orientation is deserving of constitutional protection, evidenced by Supreme Court ruling.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I think there is no realistic question that sexual orientation is deserving of constitutional protection, evidenced by Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/



It very well may be.

But, as of yet, sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal discrimination laws.

But, these cases (the sort of cases as in the original post, in case anyone has forgotten) are not about federal laws. They are about local or state anti-discrimination laws.

And, it is the people who have been accused of violating those state or local laws who are asking for special protection from the courts.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

The solution is fairly simple:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/christians-heres-solution-to-gays-suing-your-businesses/


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Nice try for an argument, but that's illegal.


Yeah but so was marriage b/w same sexes.
What we have here is something that shoulda been resolved by each state...some sort of 'covenant' for same sex couples that affords all the rights as marriage, but does not change the definition of marriage.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yeah but so was marriage b/w same sexes.
> What we have here is something that shoulda been resolved by each state...some sort of 'covenant' for same sex couples that affords all the rights as marriage, but does not change the definition of marriage.


Yes, it was illegal until it was fought through the courts. Just like discrimination against women and people of color. The states can not and should not be able to make discriminatory laws.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

It occurs to me "discrimination" is just another form of "choice". We all discriminate every day with every choice we make. I thought liberals were all about "choice".


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a &#8220;religious corporation&#8221; limited to performing &#8220;one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.&#8221;


This sentence from the article seems to be the most important part. It leads me to believe the State recognized the business as a "religious corporation" from the beginning of its existence. Therefore, the State has accepted the religious foundation of said business so this should provide the business protection provided by the First Amendment!


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Ozarks Tom said:


> It occurs to me "discrimination" is just another form of "choice". We all discriminate every day with every choice we make. I thought liberals were all about "choice".


Only when they get to do the choosing.


----------



## TacticalTrout (Jan 7, 2010)

Hmmm...curious. Say someone opened a restaurant and cooked all of their menu items in lard or bacon grease. Is the owner's decision to use pork products in all of their menu items discriminatory against certain religions or vegetarian / vegan lifestyle choices?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

painterswife said:


> One family one SS benefit. That does not seem to hard to me.


No, if you have been married 10 years you have a right to SS benefits based on the higher wage earners benefits. If 3 or4women have been married to the same man, each for 10years, each one can get SS bases on the higher wage.

One problem might be that the Hitching Post's ministers don't charge to marry people. They charge for the place, photos, flowers, but not their service. Can you be forced to give something to someone if you don't want to?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yeah but so was marriage b/w same sexes.
> What we have here is something that shoulda been resolved by each state...some sort of 'covenant' for same sex couples that affords all the rights as marriage, but does not change the definition of marriage.


Can you all really not see the difference between consenting adults and minors?


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

I think it becomes very clear how wrong it is to discriminate when you take out the word gay and replace it with mixed. As in Mixed Marriages. Think about it. This ain't the 1940's.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Oggie said:


> These sorts of situations are local issues: either state or city laws that forbid discrimination.
> 
> Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected group or classification.


Sexual discrimination is most certainly a protected group... See what I did there?? :grin:

Shall we discuss the finer details of what is or isn't under that protection? 

One could argue that a marriage ceremony is nothing but a service.. No different than any other service. 
Go ahead and define marriage without any religion.. You'll see it starts to look just like a car wash or a restaurant dining experience or a movie showing.. or any other service. 
Once you put it into that light, all of a sudden that sexual discrimination thing doesn't seem so far off anymore.

This whole thing boils down to one very sharp, but very defined line.. While the civil rights act has some specific wording in it, the purpose of the act, that is to say "its spirit", was to stop people from discriminating against other people who are different. 

In short, it's purpose was to stop narrow minded quasi-Hitler idiots from thinking their version of life was some how more righteous than another persons.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

painterswife said:


> That is the tricky part. Religion. Where is the line? Who gets to decide when religion trumps the constitution? If a religions allows murder, does that trump the murder laws?
> 
> This is exactly why this discussion is very important. it is not cut and dry. I am against discrimination but I am also for religious freedom. I do however think there are lines that need to be drawn. My lines are different than others. How do we come to a consensus with out going against the constitution?


This is an easy one.. 
Your religious freedoms stop when they start to affect other people. Until you reach that line, you're free to be as religious as you like.. 

Murdering someone would obviously have an affect on another person.. 

I challenge you to come up with a better example to blur the line.. I'm all ears for this one.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> So was marrying a homosexual couple last month in Alaska too this month...but someone claimed discrimination. What respect that claim not spread. Common decency has eroded. How far it will go... one can only imagine.


Actually, common decency is starting to increase.. Your view of it is probably flawed due to your sampling size and environmental variables.

Back in the dark ages, they burned people alive at the stake.. (thank you to the christians).. 

Ever hear of the Christian Crusades? 

Back in the 1800's we freely killed people to take their land for our own purposes.. Men raped women, beat children to death, and don't even get me started on the treatment of animals or slavery..

In the early 1900's, we used fear and open intimidation to control others.. violence, organized crime, torture, executions, and a host of other non-speakables.

As science progresses and our civilization matures and people become more aware and more educated, we are slowly and steadily becoming more decent.. In fact, as the religi-O-meter starts to fall off, we are leaving behind our dark and evil ways. 

There are still some area's however (middle east) where religion still plays a major role in society and the situation there is still pretty grim..


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Don't work as planned every time though does it here on the job you can fire someone if you don't like the color of their shirt . No Vacancy signs come to mind sometimes too are they just screening patrons?


That's not even close to a good argument for your point of view..



> Lot of feel good laws would adjust by a true free market like the smoking laws if you don't like smoke stay out .


So if I don't mind your smoke and I bring a laser beam with me and start shinning it around the room and in your eyes then by your logic, if you don't like it you should stay out????




> I'm sure if one looked there would be a depraved person somewhere that would preform a service for a woman\man and their horse :flame:


I don't understand your point here..


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Ah, until they pass a law which says one party may be _forced_ into marriage. After all, why should someone's culture who allows and encourages that behavior be discriminated against?
> 
> So who sets legal age? What if another State decides the legal age is 10 years old? Should people be forced to marry them?
> 
> I see a huge slippery slope.


I see no slippery slope at all... "legal age" should be set scientifically by coordinating it to the maturation rate (IE: age) of the individuals brain function. 
While not cost effective at this time, functional MRI's do have the ability to make that determination.. 
That said, I believe the general consensus is that the development of a persons brain function slows significantly at around 25 years old.. (last time I read an article on it anyhow).. 

So, we can use the age of 25 as a marker to determine what an individual should be allowed to do at other ages. 

Stay home alone at 12, drive at 16, vote at 18, alcohol at 21.. etc etc... 

I'm not saying I agree (or not) with those ages, but we can certainly set standards scientifically.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a âreligious corporationâ limited to performing âone-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.â
> 
> 
> This sentence from the article seems to be the most important part. It leads me to believe the State recognized the business as a "religious corporation" from the beginning of its existence. Therefore, the State has accepted the religious foundation of said business so this should provide the business protection provided by the First Amendment!


While I'm no lawyer, to my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "religious corporation".. 

The only corporation designations I'm familiar with are S-Corps, C-Corps, LLC, and Professional.. 
I have never seen a check box for a religious designation.. 

Now, in the non-profit sector, there is something called a 501c3.. but it must be non-profit..


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There are a lot of people who thought marriage had a given definition, there was no reason not to believe it.


Actually, here in the U.S., the definition has been set by the individual states, and varies from state to state. 

For instance, in some states you have to have a license and ceremony in order to be married, while in a few others, common-law marriages are recognized and afforded the same legal rights and privileges.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Murphy625 said:


> That's not even close to a good argument for your point of view..
> 
> 
> So if I don't mind your smoke and I bring a laser beam with me and start shinning it around the room and in your eyes then by your logic, if you don't like it you should stay out????
> ...


Well it is apparent you didn't understand any point .
If I own and operate my own business and want to smoke in it that should be my right . Should you enter it and bring your lazier or insult me in anyway whoever did that would be tossed out the door on their ear . You are free to start any business and run it the way you like .If you don't want smoking that is you business .

There is some depraved fool somewhere that would want to marry their horse and some depraved fool would preform the ceremony .

As to firing someone for not liking their shirt color that and many other things can be used to get rid of anyone that then can't be called discrimination .

One of the biggest outfit's that discriminates is the Gov. or places that receive grant money to operate .My wife was once fired because she had a disability took years to thrash those cats . But just let someone refuse to bake a cake and all the Gov. big guns come out the next day .:flame:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Interesting! !!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> I must have missed the context of your reply.. now your argument makes more sense and has a clearer point of view with it..
> 
> So basically what I'm getting from your point of view is that you feel you should be free to invite the general public into a poisonous and unhealthy environment because you own the environment.
> 
> ...


That's some convoluted thinking right there! 

Why would a sign even be required? Folks know, unless their the pseudo intellectual type, they probably need the sign. "Here's your sign"!!!
Folks don't have a "right" to work for me, they can if I let them and they agree to the terms of employment. Simple eh?

Don't need insurance most of the time, if I do, I can post a bond. Simple, eh?


----------



## Lady89 (Feb 22, 2014)

I do not think the christen minister should be required to perform mirages he disagrees with but I think a for profit wedding location (so not a church) should not be allowed to turn away person do to sexual orientation

It is the for profit thing that clenches me. it would be like a restaurant not letting a man eat there because he is black. And I know some of you will be offended by me saying that but bigotry is the same thing all around it does not matter is it is based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation


----------



## Lady89 (Feb 22, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Any anyway have you seen what sex ed in in school these days starting as young as 5 ?


I would like to point to the fact that when I was in school I knew a girl that was pregnant at 11 years old, and my little sister had a girl in her class that was 9! So ya I am big in teaching sex Ed well before puberty sets in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yeah but so was marriage b/w same sexes.
> What we have here is something that shoulda been resolved by each state...some sort of 'covenant' for same sex couples that affords all the rights as marriage, but does not change the definition of marriage.


Actually they weren't illegal. They were not recognized as a legal marriage for the purpose of gaining government benefits but as far as I know there were no laws that forbade holding a wedding ceremony or calling one another husband, wife or anything else afterward. Not were there any penalties for doing so. It would be illegal for them to claim benefits but the same would apply to a heterosexual couple who did the same thing without benefit of a government license.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wyoming will have same sex marriages now. 31 states now, I think.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

TacticalTrout said:


> Hmmm...curious. Say someone opened a restaurant and cooked all of their menu items in lard or bacon grease. Is the owner's decision to use pork products in all of their menu items discriminatory against certain religions or vegetarian / vegan lifestyle choices?


This has been as issue in several places...biz were asked to take down ads for bacon b/c of the insulting nature.

Along the same lines, I'd like to know what our lib friends think of the subpeonas Houston sent to the 5 pastors to turn over their sermons & congregation's communications. 
I guess they all just missed the thread on that...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Can you all really not see the difference between consenting adults and minors?


Not sure what this statement has to do w/definition of marriage?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I think it becomes very clear how wrong it is to discriminate when you take out the word gay and replace it with mixed. As in Mixed Marriages. Think about it. This ain't the 1940's.


The thing about this is, it is most definetly NOT the same. It DOES NOT change the definition of marriage. It was wrong NOT to let ANY man & woman marry, providing there's no incest.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> This has been as issue in several places...biz were asked to take down ads for bacon b/c of the insulting nature.
> 
> Along the same lines, I'd like to know what our lib friends think of the subpeonas Houston sent to the 5 pastors to turn over their sermons & congregation's communications.
> I guess they all just missed the thread on that...


It appears that the bacon thing happened in one place and the restaurant took down a sign located in a public park based on one internet complaint. There was no government involvement and the business in question acted in what they thought was their best interest just as many of you endorse. Quite different from a government mandate forcing them to remove bacon from their menu.

As for the sermons thing. If the pastors were advocating for specific political actions from the pulpit they were acting in contradiction to the laws giving them not for profit protections. I have had the same concerns about many churches and religious and charity groups in the past which is one of the reasons I have advocated for doing away with such tax exempt status for any organization.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> The thing about this is, it is most definetly NOT the same. It DOES NOT change the definition of marriage. It was wrong NOT to let ANY man & woman marry, providing there's no incest.


Your definition of marriage. Obviously not everyone's and not the majority's.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It appears that the bacon thing happened in one place and the restaurant took down a sign located in a public park based on one internet complaint. There was no government involvement and the business in question acted in what they thought was their best interest just as many of you endorse. Quite different from a government mandate forcing them to remove bacon from their menu.
> 
> As for the sermons thing. If the pastors were advocating for specific political actions from the pulpit they were acting in contradiction to the laws giving them not for profit protections. I have had the same concerns about many churches and religious and charity groups in the past which is one of the reasons I have advocated for doing away with such tax exempt status for any organization.


You happen to be wrong in that last paragraph. I'm not sure about advocating for a SPECIFIC candidate but to preach any sort of politics is free speech. And to do what Houston did is illegal! It is intimidating & therefore directly against the 1st amendment-free speech. As well as against the freedom of assembly, & freedom of religion.
But interesting that you do not know this.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Your definition of marriage. Obviously not everyone's and not the majority's.


We/ve been over this "HUNDREDS" of times. There IS a definition of marriage and it IS A LAW! 
I'm totally surprised you don't know this. 
I guess you think if you want to call 'elementary school' swimming, you can. No reason to not change the meaning.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Charities,-Churches-and-Politics

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> We/ve been over this "HUNDREDS" of times. There IS a definition of marriage and it IS A LAW!
> I'm totally surprised you don't know this.
> I guess you think if you want to call 'elementary school' swimming, you can. No reason to not change the meaning.


Those laws have been struck down. That means no laws. I am surprised you don't know this as it is all over the news.

You should also note that the meanings of words change and have since the beginning of language. I am also surprised you don't know that either.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Those laws have been struck down. That means no laws. I am surprised you don't know this as it is all over the news.
> 
> You should also note that the meanings of words change and have since the beginning of language. I am also surprised you don't know that either.


Here again you do not know. The Idiotincharge decided not to enforce the DOMA. There has been no 'strike down' of that law.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> http://www.irs.gov/uac/Charities,-Churches-and-Politics
> 
> The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.


Again, this does NOT mean that the gov't can supeona church communications or sermons. That's illegal.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure what this statement has to do w/definition of marriage?


My response was due to your comment on my post regarding child pornography. I said it was illegal, and you said, "Yeah but so was marriage b/w same sexes." 

My response wasn't about the definition of marriage (which was written by us humans, and can be changed by us humans), but about how you cannot compare same sex marriage to child pornography.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> You happen to be wrong in that last paragraph. I'm not sure about advocating for a SPECIFIC candidate but to preach any sort of politics is free speech. And to do what Houston did is illegal! It is intimidating & therefore directly against the 1st amendment-free speech. As well as against the freedom of assembly, & freedom of religion.
> But interesting that you do not know this.


You'll notice that I said "specific political action." This includes advocating for a political candidate or telling a congregation how to vote on a specific issue. I do know the limits of constitutional protection and will speak out against abuses no matter which side does the abusing. Of course, there would be no issue if the government didn't provide tax free status in exchange for an agreement by these organizations not to engage in political speech from the pulpit which I see as a much better solution.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here again you do not know. The Idiotincharge decided not to enforce the DOMA. There has been no 'strike down' of that law.


Not quite right. He decided not to defend it in a court of law when it was struck down.

PS, you did notice all those state laws that have been struck down?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Again, this does NOT mean that the gov't can supeona church communications or sermons. That's illegal.


Did I say that? I think you are assuming things again.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Did I say that? I think you are assuming things again.


The subject was Houston demanding sermons from churches as well as congregation's communications. THIS IS ILLEGAL.
So, you provided a link. 
So, I said this does not mean that sermons & church communications can be subpeoned.
I'm ASSUMING you weren't posting the link to divulge a recipe.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> The subject was Houston demanding sermons from churches as well as congregation's communications. THIS IS ILLEGAL.
> So, you provided a link.


Please educate me.. why would it be illegal to subpena a church's sermons? 

I understand why some communications within the church would be protected under the privacy clause, but I don't see how an open sermon to a publicly viewable congregation would fall under that..

And that's the whole point I think.. The priest/pastor or whatever, is free to talk in private and voice his political opinion.. but under the rules of the 501c3 (I think), they can not act as a political voice in a public setting..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> The subject was Houston demanding sermons from churches as well as congregation's communications. THIS IS ILLEGAL.
> So, you provided a link.
> So, I said this does not mean that sermons & church communications can be subpeoned.
> I'm ASSUMING you weren't posting the link to divulge a recipe.


Can you cite some legal precedents that back your assertion that subpoenaing church records is illegal. I remember the Catholic Church having to comply with such requests during their various sexual abuse cases and this article would seem to assert that churches have no special exemptions. http://www.churchlawandtax.com/cft/2014/april/must-we-comply-with-subpoena-for-giving-records.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> The subject was Houston demanding sermons from churches as well as congregation's communications. THIS IS ILLEGAL.
> So, you provided a link.
> So, I said this does not mean that sermons & church communications can be subpeoned.
> I'm ASSUMING you weren't posting the link to divulge a recipe.


Are you assuming my link was to your post?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Murphy625 said:


> To warn people before they walk in.. to give people a choice before they enter an environment that WILL harm them..
> 
> Did I read your reply correctly? You want to create a harmful environment (filled with cigarette smoke) but not give anyone any warning?? Or did I misinterpret something?


Last business I had was a sawmill in a non PC area and hired mostly kin folks .Before that I had auto repair shops also non PC . If one walks in and don't like what they see they were free to leave any complaints and aid to leave would be provided . I always maintained the right to fire a costumer


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

sawmill jim said:


> last business i had was a sawmill in a non pc area and hired mostly kin folks .before that i had auto repair shops also non pc . If one walks in and don't like what they see they were free to leave any complaints and aid to leave would be provided . I always maintained the right to fire a costumer :d


pc ??


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Think of it as short for pre communism ....it is public control .....public censorship.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Think of it as short for pre communism ....it is public control .....public censorship.


I'm not aware of any communist countries having same sex marriage.

Seventeen countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, and Luxembourg)
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/entry/c/international

So I guess I need to ask; What does same sex marriage have to do with communism?


----------



## harvestmoon1964 (Apr 24, 2014)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Last business I had was a sawmill in a non PC area and hired mostly kin folks .Before that I had auto repair shops also non PC . If one walks in and don't like what they see they were free to leave any complaints and aid to leave would be provided . I always maintained the right to fire a costumer


Do you think businesses should have the right to refuse to deal with a customer because of skin color too?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

My 2C is that for some people it boils down to their feeling/beliefs that homosexuality is a choice (and they feel the wrong choice), unlike skin color which is just the luck of the draw. 

So someone can justify excluding a group for a percieved choice, but that same group wouldn't dream of denying entry because of skin color.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Think of it as short for pre communism ....it is public control .....public censorship.


 When the time comes to replace and kick out these liberal judges that have been flaggingly being put on these lower courts then changes will be made.
In the past few years Obama has been quietly been getting at last count 54 liberal judges on the lower court system. And it is THOSE Judges that are doing this country much harm. And until that stops and those get replaced which is YEARS no change can take place. But Things at some point in time WILL get turned around in this country and back to where it once was and what the founding fathers wanted the USA to be. 
The SC only hears a Few cases each year but it those lower courts that hear hundreds more cases and it is those judges that are bad for this country in many ways.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ak spot on. Used to be that Americans were people will to dream and work, w e looked up to people who achieved to learn how to achieve. We are now lead by minority to prefers to take from others.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> Do you think businesses should have the right to refuse to deal with a customer because of skin color too?


I still say that is up to the business owner now days there are plenty others willing to take ones money but, if you tick off some my other color buddies I will not buy from them either :angel:

Now as to my own business not for skin color alone but if anyone didn't approve of the way I ran my business they were shown the door . I have many black friends most of them have the same view as I do . I ask one my black friends once if he new a guy in a little town and he told me he didn't associate with many from that part of town as they were hooligans .:angel: That guy still drops in to visit now and again and once his heat was off in one of his rental houses and I went and fixed it at midnight at no charge too. I separate folks like minded or troublemakers


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Ak spot on. Used to be that Americans were people will to dream and work, w e looked up to people who achieved to learn how to achieve. We are now lead by minority to prefers to take from others.


I think you remember an America that never existed.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

If the US truly has freedom of religion and certain companies can have their insurance modified to comply with their beliefs then the right to not participate in some ceremony that you feel is against your religion should trump this gay flouting carp.
If I am asked to bake a cake or to take pictures of the wedding or host the ceremony in my chapel I have the right to not have to it if it goes against what my religious beliefs are. I should not be sued and fined by the state for not participating in a ceremony that violates my religious beliefs.
You can not compare this to not allowing a black person to sit in your diner, there are no religions that have that sort of discrimination.

I wish the gays would quit shoving their gayness in our non gay faces and be happy with what they have gotten away with in the marriage department.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Murphy625 said:


> Sexual discrimination is most certainly a protected group... See what I did there?? :grin:
> 
> Shall we discuss the finer details of what is or isn't under that protection?
> 
> ...


Actually, you're muddying up the legal issues in the sorts of cases that are similar to the case in the original post.

It is not the gay folks who are asking for special status to be exempt from these state and local laws, it is the folks who want to discriminate.

These cases are similar to religious folks who want to be excluded from local animal cruelty laws so that they can perform sacrifices or to be excluded from drug laws so they can munch peyote.

It's not a clearly delineated line.

But, when it comes to gay rights, those who discriminate are going to be on the losing side: more and more obviously as time passes.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any communist countries having same sex marriage.
> 
> Seventeen countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, and Luxembourg)
> http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/entry/c/international
> ...


Great data but I think the point was that having the government tell you who you have to marry is another step on the road to communism, not the fact that this government picked same sex couples as the point of enforcement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Great data but I think the point was that having the government tell you who you have to marry is another step on the road to communism, not the fact that this government picked same sex couples as the point of enforcement.


But the same sex movement allows people to marry who they want to marry. Having the government tell us who we can marry is what the right is trying to do, by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

By your own definition, opposing same sex marriage is a step towards communism.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I think I made this very point earlier. If this wedding chapel only offers weddings conforming to their religion then they would be within their rights to not offer same sex marriages. I would stand behind them in court and even put money towards their defense.
> 
> If however they marry people with no religious ceremony, then they are not sticking to their religious convictions and just might lose.


The problem with that is there are as many different versions of Christianity as there are Christians...who is to determine if they are sticking to their convictions? Only they can say what their convictions are. We certainly can't have judges interpreting their scriptures or whatever they believe in to decide whether they are abiding by it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sounds expensive. One man's social security benefit can replicated only so many times. If his SS benefit is $1500/month and has five wives, they will collectively receive $7,500/month plus Medicare.
> 
> There a reason why we don't allow plural marriages, and it's not because of morals.


That's already possible...just in consecutive marriages instead of concurrent. I'd make the polygamists split the $1500 among the five wives if I were king and had to keep SS.

ETA: Former wives can only get half, so it wouldn't be the full five times amount for five consecutive wives, but only three times...assuming four ex-wives get half and the last wife gets full benefit...I think...anyway, it can add up to a lot. Polygamists can just let each of their wives have a turn at being the legally married one to accrue survivor benefits.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Murphy625 said:


> This is an easy one..
> Your religious freedoms stop when they start to affect other people. Until you reach that line, you're free to be as religious as you like..
> 
> Murdering someone would obviously have an affect on another person..
> ...


Great answer...but it gets into gray areas when defining "affect" or determining how much people are affected or can be affected. My feelings could be hurt by my neighbor saying something offensive (and thus I am affected by it) but he still has the right to free speech. Just one silly example of how it isn't quite that simple. We could limit it to only physical effects on others, but I'm not sure if that would go far enough. Maybe it would. I'll have to ponder that.



Murphy625 said:


> While I'm no lawyer, to my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "religious corporation"..
> 
> The only corporation designations I'm familiar with are S-Corps, C-Corps, LLC, and Professional..
> I have never seen a check box for a religious designation..
> ...


The Hobby Lobby case may have changed that. I don't think the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged it as a religious corporation, but a big part of the ruling in their favor was based on the fact that it is a "closely held corporation" and thus kind of rides on the rights of the owners.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> Great answer...but it gets into gray areas when defining "affect" or determining how much people are affected or can be affected. My feelings could be hurt by my neighbor saying something offensive (and thus I am affected by it) but he still has the right to free speech. Just one silly example of how it isn't quite that simple. We could limit it to only physical effects on others, but I'm not sure if that would go far enough. Maybe it would. I'll have to ponder that.


I would say it must be a measurable physical effect.. IE: Stick and stone will break my bones.. There's some common sense in that.. 

But when someones mythological religious beliefs start to influence the life of another person, it has to be stopped cold. 




> The Hobby Lobby case may have changed that. I don't think the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged it as a religious corporation, but a big part of the ruling in their favor was based on the fact that it is a "closely held corporation" and thus kind of rides on the rights of the owners.


That was a huge mistake and probably the fault of the incompetence of the attorneys making the arguments. Even I can muddy lines better than they can.. 

So if Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for contraception for women, what if some corp owned by a Jehovah Witness doesn't want to pay for blood testing, or worse, a blood transfusion? 
(ya, the transfusion is pushing the envelope but the blood test is in line)

See what I did there? The supreme court really messed up.. they opened the door to all kinds of arguments and loopholes.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Murphy625 said:


> I would say it must be a measurable physical effect.. IE: Stick and stone will break my bones.. There's some common sense in that..


I tend to agree, but there may be some things I'm not thinking of.



> But when someones mythological religious beliefs start to influence the life of another person, it has to be stopped cold.


I'm a little confused by this. It seems to conflict with your sticks and stones thing above.




> That was a huge mistake and probably the fault of the incompetence of the attorneys making the arguments. Even I can muddy lines better than they can..
> 
> So if Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for contraception for women, what if some corp owned by a Jehovah Witness doesn't want to pay for blood testing, or worse, a blood transfusion?
> (ya, the transfusion is pushing the envelope but the blood test is in line)
> ...


Whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, it's done. Closely held corporations can be "pseudo-religious" now. That could apply to this wedding chapel.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'm a little confused by this. It seems to conflict with your sticks and stones thing above.


I'd say that when speech crosses over into action -- action that infringes on another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that's the point at which Houston, we have a problem.

For instance, you can quote the Bible verse that says people like me should be put to death until you're blue in the face. You can even put it on signs and march back and forth into front of my house, I don't care. Sticks and stones ... etc. It's easy enough to ignore you.

Try_ enforcing_ that Biblical pronouncement? _Now_ we have a problem!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> Please educate me.. why would it be illegal to subpena a church's sermons?
> 
> I understand why some communications within the church would be protected under the privacy clause, but I don't see how an open sermon to a publicly viewable congregation would fall under that..
> 
> And that's the whole point I think.. The priest/pastor or whatever, is free to talk in private and voice his political opinion.. but under the rules of the 501c3 (I think), they can not act as a political voice in a public setting..


It is illegal b/c it conveys a tampering w/free speech. A 'bullying' if you will. I'm at a loss for the legal term at the moment. It also implies that right to assemble is in danger...it also asked for private communications b/w parishioners...wrongwrongwrong. Right of privacy and all. As well as freedom of religion takes a hit.

You are right, the sermons can all be picked up on line. But its the subpeona part that is not legal.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> I would say it must be a measurable physical effect.. IE: Stick and stone will break my bones.. There's some common sense in that..
> 
> But when someones mythological religious beliefs start to influence the life of another person, it has to be stopped cold.
> 
> ...


Not sure but I think this is already the case...JWs don't have to pay for transfusions...if that ever comes up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> It is illegal b/c it conveys a tampering w/free speech. A 'bullying' if you will. I'm at a loss for the legal term at the moment. It also implies that right to assemble is in danger...it also asked for private communications b/w parishioners...wrongwrongwrong. Right of privacy and all. As well as freedom of religion takes a hit.
> 
> You are right, the sermons can all be picked up on line. But its the subpeona part that is not legal.


Just because you feel it is wrong doesn't make it illegal. I posted a link stating legal opinion that it wasn't. Please back your assertions with facts, not opinions. The best defense against any chilling effect such action might have on speech from the pulpit is to not have any speech that conflicts with the law in the first place. If you're not talking politics or advocating for a particular vote you don't have an issue, do you?

I'll say it more simply. If you want to practice political speech from the pulpit don't accept tax breaks for religious or not for profit reasons. Don't enter into a deal with the devil ( the government) and expect to come out on top.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> But the same sex movement allows people to marry who they want to marry. Having the government tell us who we can marry is what the right is trying to do, by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
> 
> By your own definition, opposing same sex marriage is a step towards communism.


This is correct, but you miss my point. There is a difference between a government _recognizing_ a marriage and one forcing other entities to _perform_ the marriage. It's the whole reason having defined "civil unions" in order to satisfy legal requirements is a good idea. It separates what we need in order for our currents laws to function as intended but allows each religion to conduct and define it's own terms of marriage.

What the case in the OP is doing is trying to force recognition and legitimacy of the LGBT lifestyle onto people who choose not to believe that way. That is no more valid than the other side trying to deny same sex marriage.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure but I think this is already the case...JWs don't have to pay for transfusions...if that ever comes up.


That can not possibly be true or the Hobby Lobby case would have never come up.. 

(or maybe you are I are talking apples and oranges).. 

To be more clear about my point... Lets make a fictional example: If you are a JW and you own Bobby Hobby, do you now have the right to refuse to pay for blood tests or blood transfusions for your employees? 

In other words.. If the real Hobby Lobby can say no to certain medical care services (contraception) based on their religion, perhaps the JW can do the same with the blood tests..


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Everyone that is using Hobby Lobby for any examples does know their insurance pays for contraception prevention, not the morning after pill or IUDs.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Everyone that is using Hobby Lobby for any examples does know their insurance pays for contraception prevention, not the morning after pill or IUDs.
> 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/


They covered Plan B and Ella before the ACA came along, that whole fiasco was politically motivated and nothing to do with religious freedom...the people were hoodwinked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> They covered Plan B and Ella before the ACA came along, that whole fiasco was politically motivated and nothing to do with religious freedom...the people were hoodwinked.


It's moot, since Plan B is now available over the counter. No insurance covers it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Glade Runner said:


> Some very hard decisions are going to have to be made pretty quickly.


I agree, and one of those tough decisions will be to put ones bigotry in the trash can.... life long held beliefs can be hard to dispose of.... no matter how repugnant or wrong they may be.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree, and one of those tough decisions will be to put ones bigotry in the trash can.... life long held beliefs can be hard to dispose of.... no matter how repugnant or wrong they may be.


Just hitting the "LIKE" button didn't seem like it was adequate enough so I'm just quoting you.. 

In fact, I should copy it, make it bold, make it bright red, and make it flash.. 

1/2 the problems in our world could be solved if people could just learn how to reevaluate their belief systems and knowledge base.

Too many people tend to seek righteousness instead of truth..

+1..


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I'd say that when speech crosses over into action -- action that infringes on another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that's the point at which Houston, we have a problem.
> 
> For instance, you can quote the Bible verse that says people like me should be put to death until you're blue in the face. You can even put it on signs and march back and forth into front of my house, I don't care. Sticks and stones ... etc. It's easy enough to ignore you.
> 
> Try_ enforcing_ that Biblical pronouncement? _Now_ we have a problem!


I agree 100% (I think)...it just gets confusing when someone uses imprecise words like "affect" and "influence" in this context, since speech (or refusing to perform a wedding) can affect and influence the lives of others, but not necessarily enough that we should sanction it.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> I agree 100% (I think)...it just gets confusing when someone uses imprecise words like "affect" and "influence" in this context, since speech (or refusing to perform a wedding) can affect and influence the lives of others, but not necessarily enough that we should sanction it.


I would agree that the use of the terms "affect" and "influence" are a bit subjective in a lot of ways but its the english language and real life.. there's more analog than digital decision making going on.

One could stretch the argument of affect and influence all the way to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Of course, at that point, common sense would be long gone.

Some common sense and good judgement must be used.. Refusing to help someone with a flat tire because you don't agree with their religion will certainly have an affect.. but that's not what we're after in this context. 

Refusing to give someone blood or denying them a service that is available to everyone else is another issue.

A For Profit chapel is a business like any other.. I'm pretty sure it falls under public accommodation.. in as such, they can not discriminate any more than a restaurant can. 
I would bet that is what the courts are going to decide... 

On further thought.. here's another way of looking at things.. 

As I understand the law, and its intent.. You can not deny someone because of their religion.. But can you deny them because of yours? 

I'll be thinking of that one while I'm chopping wood later on... 

Are the waters muddy yet?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yes, the waters are certainly muddy...I'm trying to go in the opposite direction from muddied waters, though.



> Refusing to give someone blood or denying them a service that is available to everyone else is another issue.


These are two very different things. Refusing to give someone blood is an easy one. That would have a very obvious physical effect on the person. Denying someone a service that isn't essential to life (like a wedding) won't physically harm that person, and they can simply go down the road to the wedding chapel that is tolerant of their particular situation.



> A For Profit chapel is a business like any other.. I'm pretty sure it falls under public accommodation.. in as such, they can not discriminate any more than a restaurant can.
> I would bet that is what the courts are going to decide...


There's a good chance you're correct about this part, especially since they only charge for the use of their facilities and such (according to another post). Thus, the business is just a venue. I don't know the public accommodation laws, but I'm interested to know where the lines are drawn...restaurants and motels are easy since everybody needs to eat and sleep somewhere. Wedding chapel...gray area.

In any case, I don't think they can or should be forced to perform the ceremonies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> In any case, I don't think they can or should be forced to perform the ceremonies.


Maybe they should just be "taxed" if they refuse instead of paying a penalty? Kinda like the ACA does. That way no one would be "forced" into doing something they dont believe in. I am thinking a couple grand tax here, a small price to pay for maintaining ones religious principles, and it would encourage some to examine their principles just a bit more.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe they should just be "taxed" if they refuse instead of paying a penalty? Kinda like the ACA does. That way no one would be "forced" into doing something they dont believe in. I am thinking a couple grand tax here, a small price to pay for maintaining ones religious principles, and it would encourage some to examine their principles just a bit more.


That would be just as wrong as the ACA tax is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> That would be just as wrong as the ACA tax is.


Glad you caught that. Perhaps we should just call it what it would be... a bigotry fine.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

People have the right to be bigots as long as their bigotry doesn't hurt someone else...the question is how do we define "hurt" in this context? Hurt feelings isn't enough to justify sanctions. Physical hurt is. In between hurt feelings and physical hurt...maybe.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> People have the right to be bigots as long as their bigotry doesn't hurt someone else...the question is how do we define "hurt" in this context? Hurt feelings isn't enough to justify sanctions. Physical hurt is. In between hurt feelings and physical hurt...maybe.


And where does exclusion or segregation fall into that categorical attempt?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As a child I got to hear bishop Mahoney state to his sister one Friday.


"Well, I don't care if the pope or any one else wants to go to help by eating meat on Friday ...I don't."

Each person has a right to their understanding and belief of faith. 

As for taxing churches or any religious our founding fathers new just where this would lead. To the point that government would use that door to control the pulpit. The often quoted tax code that exempts mosques,temples churches was not planned to snag churches but it did look up the history and rational for that code.


----------



## Lady89 (Feb 22, 2014)

As a lot of us are arguing over what the definition of marriage is I would like to point out that in the christen churches original definition of marriage Polygamy was the norm and it was considered perfectly ok to stone a wife to death if she could not give you a son, and in the not so distant past interracial marriages were agents the law. The definition of marriage has changed hundreds of times to fit evolving social norms and will continue to change 

And as fore as the &#8220;civil unions&#8221; thing that was as a mater of fact put on the table by the LGBT community back in the 90&#8217;s but was shot down hard but the conservative right, so hurt and offended that there reasonable offer was rejected LGBT decided it was time to go big or go home and they got to work redefining marriage


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

jtbrandt said:


> Yes, the waters are certainly muddy...I'm trying to go in the opposite direction from muddied waters, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The opposite direction from muddy waters is pretty c&#322;ear- treat everyone equally. The problem with saying things like someone should just go down the street to another wedding chapel dismisses the fact that not all wedding chapels are created equal. Why shouldn't all couples who can afford it have access to the best wedding chapel with the fanciest alter and the prettiest flowers and the tastiest cake? Why should a restaurant be different? I don't wish to serve gays my dry aged steak- there's a McDonalds down the block for them. Food is food, right? The Hilton is the same as Motel 6, right? 

The pastors themselves should not be forced to perform ceremonies against their faith. However, if they are offering a complete wedding ceremony to all others who walk through their door and pay their fees it is not unreasonable to expect them to have available someone licensed to perform the ceremony for same sex couples whose sensibilities won't be offended.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe they should just be "taxed" if they refuse instead of paying a penalty? Kinda like the ACA does. That way no one would be "forced" into doing something they dont believe in. I am thinking a couple grand tax here, a small price to pay for maintaining ones religious principles, and it would encourage some to examine their principles just a bit more.


Maybe they should fall in line with the long tradition of religous martyrs and pay whatever price is applicable for standing up for their beliefs. I'm trying to figure out when standing up for one's beliefs became a none contact sport in this country.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Just because you feel it is wrong doesn't make it illegal. I posted a link stating legal opinion that it wasn't. Please back your assertions with facts, not opinions. The best defense against any chilling effect such action might have on speech from the pulpit is to not have any speech that conflicts with the law in the first place. If you're not talking politics or advocating for a particular vote you don't have an issue, do you?
> 
> I'll say it more simply. If you want to practice political speech from the pulpit don't accept tax breaks for religious or not for profit reasons. Don't enter into a deal with the devil ( the government) and expect to come out on top.


And who said they were practicing political speech? In the 1st place, not one Pastor was advocating a political figure. They can preach all they want about ideas, etc. Just cannot stand up & say "You must vote for X". (Like most afro-american churches do!) Do you understand that?
B/c if you are saying they cannot preach anything political, you are WRONG. You have not provided any link that says otherwise.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> That can not possibly be true or the Hobby Lobby case would have never come up..
> 
> (or maybe you are I are talking apples and oranges)..
> 
> ...


I believe that is correct. IF a JW owned co. was forced to pay for transfusions & felt it was wrong, they'd be off the hook.
For some reason, I don't think they'd be that strongly against it...one of those things that they believe but don't condemn? JMHO.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> I would agree that the use of the terms "affect" and "influence" are a bit subjective in a lot of ways but its the english language and real life.. there's more analog than digital decision making going on.
> 
> One could stretch the argument of affect and influence all the way to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Of course, at that point, common sense would be long gone.
> 
> ...


Wait, wait, wait///who is DENYING anyone anything? If you refuse to PAY for something you are DENYING that person??? I really don't think so!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murphy625 said:


> I would agree that the use of the terms "affect" and "influence" are a bit subjective in a lot of ways but its the english language and real life.. there's more analog than digital decision making going on.
> 
> One could stretch the argument of affect and influence all the way to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Of course, at that point, common sense would be long gone.
> 
> ...


Wait, wait wait! Who is DENYING anyone anything? If you refuse to pay for something for someone you are DENYING that person? I really don't think so. Herein lies the rub! 
This was the whole point of the HL case! You cannot force someone to PAY for something you feel is not right. 
I thought we were all clear on that.
Its like if your g'ma was firmly against liquor & she's forced to pay for someone's drunken brawl. Or you're Jewish & own a deli & are forced to serve ham sandwiches. Or if you're against abortion and are forced to pay for a bunch of 'em.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Lady89 said:


> As a lot of us are arguing over what the definition of marriage is I would like to point out that in the christen churches original definition of marriage Polygamy was the norm and it was considered perfectly ok to stone a wife to death if she could not give you a son, and in the not so distant past interracial marriages were agents the law. The definition of marriage has changed hundreds of times to fit evolving social norms and will continue to change
> 
> And as fore as the âcivil unionsâ thing that was as a mater of fact put on the table by the LGBT community back in the 90âs but was shot down hard but the conservative right, so hurt and offended that there reasonable offer was rejected LGBT decided it was time to go big or go home and they got to work redefining marriage


Ya know, it is getting waaaaay old to see the Old Testament quoted when no Christian follows it. And come to think of it, give me an example of Jewish folks following this?
I'm sure you have a newspaper article of those things happening.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe they should fall in line with the long tradition of religous martyrs and pay whatever price is applicable for standing up for their beliefs. I'm trying to figure out when standing up for one's beliefs became a none contact sport in this country.


Ah, showing your compassion again, I see.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> And who said they were practicing political speech? In the 1st place, not one Pastor was advocating a political figure. They can preach all they want about ideas, etc. Just cannot stand up & say "You must vote for X". (Like most afro-american churches do!) Do you understand that?
> B/c if you are saying they cannot preach anything political, you are WRONG. You have not provided any link that says otherwise.


And you have yet to provide anything but your opinion. I provided a link showing that subpoena of church records was not illegal, as you have claimed. Whether that subpoena comes up with evidence of illegal activity is secondary. Many search warrants are served every day that don't result in evidence of a crime but that doesn't make the warrants themselves illegal. I have no idea what the preachers were saying. I wasn't there. My words were fairly clear as to advocating for specific political action from the pulpit being prohibited in order to keep one's tax free status. I find it wrong to do so on all accounts. You won't find me defending it no matter the venue. Remove the tax exemption, remove the conflict.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, showing your compassion again, I see.


It's not a matter of compassion. It's a matter of consistency. The Christian tradition is long and full of those who made sacrifices from ostracism, to imprisonment, to torture and even death in standing up for their beliefs in the face of authority. Even if I disagree with their stand I applaud the priests in this case for standing up for what they believe in. I laugh at those who think they shouldn't pay a price for that stance if they are found to be in contradiction to the law


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Getting back to the original topic, I have to wonder if the pastors running this for-profit wedding chapel carefully investigate the background of each heterosexual couple they unite to ensure that they are following Biblical law. 

For instance, it would be sacrilegious to perform a second (or third, or fourth) marriage unless the divorced party(ies) had had Biblical grounds for divorce, right? 

It would be interesting to know if these pastors balk at such requests, or if they only draw the line when it comes to gay couples.

I'll bet I can guess the answer to that one ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Getting back to the original topic, I have to wonder if the pastors running this for-profit wedding chapel carefully investigate the background of each heterosexual couple they unite to ensure that they are following Biblical law.
> 
> For instance, it would be sacrilegious to perform a second (or third, or fourth) marriage unless the divorced party(ies) had had Biblical grounds for divorce, right?
> 
> ...


But therein comes the rub of the Hobby Lobby case. The court, in essentially ignoring the inconsistencies in Hobby Lobby's business practices as they related to other aspects of their religion, allowed that a closely held corporation can pick and choose their level of piety. The question in this case is a bit different than Hibby Lobby, though. It is about whether a company can be forced to sell something to all comers rather than whether a company can be forced to purchase something.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Something that I don't think has been brought up yet is in this day and age any sort of discrimination is much easier to broadcast. Yelp comes to mind: http://www.yelp.com/biz/hitching-post-the-chapel-coeur-d-alene

Of course, on the flip side you'll get the man/woman supports who go there as a show of support. Sometimes even bad business is good business. But if you read each review, it seems that nobody has actually *been* there..they're just venting their complaints about the discrimination itself.

This is nothing new as more and more people take to places like Yelp to slam a business who refuses to serve gay couples or whatnot. I'm not saying a business should cow down for fear of retallliation, but I think nowadays they have more to lose as word spreads so much faster...


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> Getting back to the original topic, I have to wonder if the pastors running this for-profit wedding chapel carefully investigate the background of each heterosexual couple they unite to ensure that they are following Biblical law.
> 
> For instance, it would be sacrilegious to perform a second (or third, or fourth) marriage unless the divorced party(ies) had had Biblical grounds for divorce, right?
> 
> ...


I find it interesting that leftists always claim the absolute right to dictate requirements of conscience for others. "If you believe this, then you must do this other thing." What conceit! 

Of course the reality is that it's a very thinly veiled attempt to define terms and conditions and thereby control the discussion or win the argument. It's all part of the lefty dictatorial mindset.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> But therein comes the rub of the Hobby Lobby case. The court, in essentially ignoring the inconsistencies in Hobby Lobby's business practices as they related to other aspects of their religion, allowed that a closely held corporation can pick and choose their level of piety. The question in this case is a bit different than Hibby Lobby, though. It is about whether a company can be forced to sell something to all comers rather than whether a company can be forced to purchase something.


Yes, you absolutely can choose to determine your level of piety. That's called liberty, freedom. I realize that's a foreign concept to leftists who prefer iron clad diktat by the ruling class.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> I find it interesting that leftists always claim the absolute right to dictate requirements of conscience for others. "If you believe this, then you must do this other thing." What conceit!
> 
> Of course the reality is that it's a very thinly veiled attempt to define terms and conditions and thereby control the discussion or win the argument. It's all part of the lefty dictatorial mindset.


I find it interesting how the righty's want to say they believe something and therefore can't do something because of those beliefs, but then pick and choose when they live by what they believe or when they will stick to those beliefs.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yes, so often there is Bible cherrypicking going on to explain away hate or discrimintion. Yet there's things in there written that I know people don't follow. Pass the shrimp.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> It would be interesting to know if these pastors balk at such requests, or if they only draw the line when it comes to gay couples.
> 
> I'll bet I can guess the answer to that one ...


As people become more educated and aware, and as the relig-O-meter continues to fall, you will see the religious organizations becoming more and more "accepting" in order to keep the cash flowing. 

We are already seeing it..

You can't be religious without also being a Hypocrite.. It's just not possible.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Murphy625 said:


> As people become more educated and aware, and as the relig-O-meter continues to fall, you will see the religious organizations becoming more and more "accepting" in order to keep the cash flowing.
> 
> We are already seeing it..
> 
> You can't be religious without also being a Hypocrite.. It's just not possible.


Somewhat...but I also see churches changing and growing to continue to support the needs of their parishoners. Change is not easy but some are realizing they need to in order to grow, let alone retain people, spefically young people. So many churches here are all grey. They need new blood and have figured out they need to welcome all, as in Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors. - Methodist church.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Yes, you absolutely can choose to determine your level of piety. That's called liberty, freedom. I realize that's a foreign concept to leftists who prefer iron clad diktat by the ruling class.


Would that be the same ruling class who, for most of our country's history, have tried to deny those basic human rights the founders espoused to minorities, women and gays? It hurts when your class gets a little too small and powerless to oppress others, eh?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Murphy625 said:


> As people become more educated and aware, and as the relig-O-meter continues to fall, you will see the religious organizations becoming more and more "accepting" in order to keep the cash flowing.
> 
> We are already seeing it..
> 
> You can't be religious without also being a Hypocrite.. It's just not possible.


Please note I am not religious in the least. I however have to disagree. I work for two gentleman who are very religious and actually are the founders of their church. They are not hypocrites and don't cherry pick what they stand for and behind. I have the highest respect these men.

I may not get what you are saying but I did need to respond.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Jax-mom said:


> Somewhat...but I also see churches changing and growing to continue to support the needs of their parishoners. Change is not easy but some are realizing they need to in order to grow, let alone retain people, spefically young people. So many churches here are all grey. They need new blood and have figured out they need to welcome all, as in Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors. - Methodist church.


So they decide to serve man and not God in order to keep the cash flowing and numbers up . :runforhills: I agree they should welcome all but not preach just to tickle the ears of people in attendance .

Matthew 7:13-14New International Version (NIV)

The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 âEnter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Glade Runner said:


> I find it interesting that leftists always claim the absolute right to dictate requirements of conscience for others. "If you believe this, then you must do this other thing." What conceit!


And pray tell... how is that so much different than the religious right "I believe this... so you must do things my way."?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Matthew 7:13-14New International Version (NIV)
> 
> The Narrow and Wide Gates
> 13 âEnter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


I much prefer the start of Matthew 7, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Jax-mom said:


> I much prefer the start of Matthew 7, but that's just my opinion.


Not bad opinion Mat. 7 -6 puts it plain enough :angel:
6 âDo not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> But therein comes the rub of the Hobby Lobby case. The court, in essentially ignoring the inconsistencies in Hobby Lobby's business practices as they related to other aspects of their religion, allowed that a closely held corporation can pick and choose their level of piety. The question in this case is a bit different than Hibby Lobby, though. It is about whether a company can be forced to sell something to all comers rather than whether a company can be forced to purchase something.


There may be another aspect that nobody seems to understand. Everybody is thinking as if gay marriage is the same thing as the marriages these pastors are performing. To the pastors this may not be the case.

If they define their service as "Performing a ceremony per this religious view" then having them perform something else is entirely different. It would be like calling a plummer and insisting they install your satellite dish. You do call yourself a "serviceman" right? You install things right? Then why discriminate towards me because I am trying to install a satellite dish rather than a water heater?

Linking to the example of a restaurant, it has been decided it's not OK for a restaurant to deny serving things to people due to their ethnicity. However has it ever been decided that they have to _change the menu to fit a minority customer_? If so I would like to know where.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bible dance off, anyone?


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

Jax-mom said:


> Bible dance off, anyone?


Sure.. Lets dance! 

Here's one (of many) of my favorite quotes which show how absurd religious beliefs are:

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. ()

The religulous meter doesn't even have a scale for that one..

And the comedy continues...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Old testament....history--New testament current instructions.


I guess if one had a grudge about the blue book of canning and supported the false canning teachings by using the words and instruction from the first edition.

Great method ..


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Old testament....history--New testament current instructions.
> 
> 
> I guess if one had a grudge about the blue book of canning and supported the false canning teachings by using the words and instruction from the first edition.
> ...


Umm.. In a court of law, when someone changes their testimony (read: testament), its called perjury, as in "to perjure ones self.. and their entire testimony is normally considered unreliable. 

Isn't there a commandment for that?? 

So the church changes the bible as they see fit.. there's the Old, and now here's the New.. 

Ok.. Got it.. 

So at what point did God return and create all new experiences with those who created those testaments?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Old testament....history--New testament current instructions.
> 
> 
> I guess if one had a grudge about the blue book of canning and supported the false canning teachings by using the words and instruction from the first edition.
> ...


 Sounds like a great way to live by.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Murphy625 said:


> Umm.. In a court of law, when someone changes their testimony (read: testament), its called perjury, as in "to perjure ones self.. and their entire testimony is normally considered unreliable.
> 
> Isn't there a commandment for that??
> 
> ...


The history stays the same, the lessons learned from it change.

I don't quite understand what you are after, nor how it pertains to the subject of this thread. The Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was legal. They later ruled it was not. That does not constitute perjury. Why does changing how one lives over time upset you so much?


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

Murphy625 said:


> Umm.. In a court of law, when someone changes their testimony (read: testament), its called perjury, as in "to perjure ones self.. and their entire testimony is normally considered unreliable.
> 
> Isn't there a commandment for that??
> 
> ...


The "church" didn't change things - God did. Christ came to earth to change things. It was the entire point. But we still need the history in the OT to understand the full picture.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Murphy625 said:


> Sure.. Lets dance!
> 
> Here's one (of many) of my favorite quotes which show how absurd religious beliefs are:
> 
> ...


The understanding meter is even in worse shape .Who is man to tell God how to run things then or now :angel: Might also not just pull out a verse here and there without trying to understand the rest of the Bible or even all of Leviticus :runforhills:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> The history stays the same, the lessons learned from it change.
> 
> I don't quite understand what you are after, nor how it pertains to the subject of this thread. The Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was legal. They later ruled it was not. That does not constitute perjury. Why does changing how one lives over time upset you so much?


That means that people(GOD) are changing what the bible means as they learn or experience things. It meant and was one thing and now means and is something else.

Does that mean the next version will make same sex couples okay?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> That means that people(GOD) are changing what the bible means as they learn or experience things. It meant and was one thing and now means and is something else.
> 
> Does that mean the next version will make same sex couples okay?


Not trying to answer for Nate :shrug: But if anyone didn't understand his statement it was their choice not to :runforhills:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> People have the right to be bigots as long as their bigotry doesn't hurt someone else...the question is how do we define "hurt" in this context? Hurt feelings isn't enough to justify sanctions. Physical hurt is. In between hurt feelings and physical hurt...maybe.





Murphy625 said:


> Umm.. In a court of law, when someone changes their testimony (read: testament), its called perjury, as in "to perjure ones self.. and their entire testimony is normally considered unreliable.
> 
> Isn't there a commandment for that??
> 
> ...



So you if you read it then you kinda missed a big part of the message.

You know I once asked a nun in school " Since Jesus is our role model, and we are to follow him, .....but we will only fail... if Jesus was a Jew, why are we Catholics?.


I got my answer and I understand it now. But I lack the patience of sister Maria Grace.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The "church" didn't change things - God did. Christ came to earth to change things. It was the entire point.


Yet somehow, being born gay is still wrong. Am I correct?


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

painterswife said:


> That means that people(GOD) are changing what the bible means as they learn or experience things. It meant and was one thing and now means and is something else.
> 
> Does that mean the next version will make same sex couples okay?


God's word has not changed. There was an old covenant, and then God chose to change things up by sending Christ and it was not a quiet event - it caused a bit of an uproar even in the days of old with no internet or tv news to spread the word. 

There will come another day when God will change things up again and fulfill more of the prophecies, but it has not happened yet. Believe me, when it does, you will notice. It won't quietly sneak on to bookshelves or slip out of the mouth of a televangelist without anyone really noticing. 

The differences you find between Christians and their feelings and teachings about homosexuality is a result of human fallibility - not a change in how God views it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> Getting back to the original topic, I have to wonder if the pastors running this for-profit wedding chapel carefully investigate the background of each heterosexual couple they unite to ensure that they are following Biblical law.
> 
> For instance, it would be sacrilegious to perform a second (or third, or fourth) marriage unless the divorced party(ies) had had Biblical grounds for divorce, right?
> 
> ...


Unless the pastors don't believe second marriage is a problem...just because the Bible says it doesn't mean they believe it. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to pick and choose. Nobody can be required to stick to the "official" version of any religion in order to qualify for their rights. Perhaps their only conviction is that same sex marriage is wrong.

ETA: I see I'm late to the party...should have finished reading before replying....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Glade Runner said:


> Yes, you absolutely can choose to determine your level of piety. That's called liberty, freedom. I realize that's a foreign concept to leftists who prefer iron clad diktat by the ruling class.


You might have a bit more credibility if you were consistent, though.

For the record, I'm not really a "leftist" -- I'm a libertarian who happens to be bi.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The opposite direction from muddy waters is pretty c&#322;ear- treat everyone equally. The problem with saying things like someone should just go down the street to another wedding chapel dismisses the fact that not all wedding chapels are created equal. Why shouldn't all couples who can afford it have access to the best wedding chapel with the fanciest alter and the prettiest flowers and the tastiest cake? Why should a restaurant be different? I don't wish to serve gays my dry aged steak- there's a McDonalds down the block for them. Food is food, right? The Hilton is the same as Motel 6, right?
> 
> The pastors themselves should not be forced to perform ceremonies against their faith. However, if they are offering a complete wedding ceremony to all others who walk through their door and pay their fees it is not unreasonable to expect them to have available someone licensed to perform the ceremony for same sex couples whose sensibilities won't be offended.


I'm mostly with you. Ideally, people would be willing to treat everyone equally. But some people believe it is wrong to do so. In certain cases, the government forces them to do it anyway. That may end up being the case here, but I'm not sure if it's right. A wedding chapel is different from at least some of the other public accommodations...restaurants and hotels/motels serve the basic human needs of eating and sleeping. Marriage is not a basic human need. But I don't know how far the public accommodation laws go. I'm more interested in the philosophical side than the legal side.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> You might have a bit more credibility if you were consistent, though.


This part is absolutely true when it comes to public opinion, but should have no bearing on legal protection of religious freedom.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> That means that people(GOD) are changing what the bible means as they learn or experience things. It meant and was one thing and now means and is something else.
> 
> Does that mean the next version will make same sex couples okay?


Every religion is different in some manner. New ones are popping up all the time. Many religions, some even considered Christian, have already accepted same sex marriage.

The problem with the case presented in the original post is the whom is forcing what on who. As I said before there is no more validity in a gay couple forcing a pastor to marry them than a pastor preventing the gay couple from being wed in a different church.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I'm a libertarian who happens to be bi.


Is that your real picture in your avatar? 


I've always thought that the gay rights people are doing it all wrong.. Lets face it, men still control most of the government.. 

If you want to get gay rights past, stop showing two ugly guys kissing and holding hands.. That's freaking gross.. (from my man perspective)..

Put up two hot looking blond 18 year old cheerleaders doing it.. Those laws would be passed so fast the ink wouldn't have time to dry...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Murphy625 said:


> I'm struggling to figure out how you came to that conclusion..
> 
> Anyone???


Not me. You made a suggestion on how to get men to accept it but you did not say it was the right way to be for men.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Yet somehow, being born gay is still wrong. Am I correct?


We are all born wrong - every single one of us. We are all born with a sinful nature and we will all have something that is seemingly impossible to resist. What that is varies from person to person - and may even change over the course of one's life. A lot of it seems to revolve around sex of some sort - the list of sins involving sex seems to be almost as long as all the other types of sinning put together. I suppose it is one of human kind's weakest points and therefore the easiest to exploit, but it really is not the only type of sin out there. The absolute only difference in one person's sin vs another (as far as God is concerned) - is whether or not they are willing to admit it is sin, and repent of it and work to resist the temptation. 

The gay community does not have a monopoly on sin and never did. But I can see how all the media hype makes it feel that way. If you had 2% of the population banding together to declare that lying is not a sin because they were born as liars. And then if you had a portion of Christians who went along with that and said "yeah, lets forget all that mumbo jumbo in the Bible about lying being wrong." Then you would likely have the same type of hype and division surrounding the equally devastating (to your salvation) sin of lying.

Society likes to place some kind of value on sin as if one was any worse than another, but the truth is that they are all the same in God's eyes. The little white lie separates you from God just as much as the serial killer's grizzly habits separate him from God. They all require forgiveness, which requires repentance (turning away from) of that sin. 

Right now I am dealing with a hardening of my heart. I have allowed cynicism to overshadow my compassion. Lately God has been "dealing with me" on that. Which basically means I better get my butt in gear and start to work on my attitude. Just another in a very long line of attitude adjustments I have had, and will continue to have until I die - and there will be some things I struggle with that I may never overcome in this life. We are all just doing the best that we can, really. 

But having said all of that, it is important to note that struggling with an issue and failing to overcome it, is entirely different than declaring defiantly "I will not try" and simply giving yourself over to something. God knows the difference. It is that difference that is at the very heart of this issue.


----------



## Murphy625 (Oct 16, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Not me. You made a suggestion on how to get men to accept it but you did not say it was the right way to be for men.


I wasn't insinuating any moral or ethical right or wrong on either side.. 

I was simply pointing out a lesson most folks learn in Marketing & Sales 101... 

Know your target audience....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

paradox said:


> We are all born wrong - every single one of us. We are all born with a sinful nature and we will all have something that is seemingly impossible to resist. What that is varies from person to person - and may even change over the course of one's life. A lot of it seems to revolve around sex of some sort - the list of sins involving sex seems to be almost as long as all the other types of sinning put together. I suppose it is one of human kind's weakest points and therefore the easiest to exploit, but it really is not the only type of sin out there. The absolute only difference in one person's sin vs another (as far as God is concerned) - is whether or not they are willing to admit it is sin, and repent of it and work to resist the temptation.
> 
> The gay community does not have a monopoly on sin and never did. But I can see how all the media hype makes it feel that way. If you had 2% of the population banding together to declare that lying is not a sin because they were born as liars. And then if you had a portion of Christians who went along with that and said "yeah, lets forget all that mumbo jumbo in the Bible about lying being wrong." Then you would likely have the same type of hype and division surrounding the equally devastating (to your salvation) sin of lying.
> 
> ...


Ok, this is a bit off topic, but I am curious about those "little white lies". We all tell them on a regular basis... How are you today? I am fine thanks.... even though we arent all that great... or Do these pants make my backside look too big... of course not! We all know its NOT the pants but whose going to tell the truth on this one? Not this child! I guess I will be cast into the eternal flame when I croak, but somehow I just cant bring myself to be 100 percent honest every time. I have looked and I cant find the scripture that says all lying is a sin. Anyone happen to have it handy?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this is a bit off topic, but I am curious about those "little white lies". We all tell them on a regular basis... How are you today? I am fine thanks.... even though we arent all that great... or Do these pants make my backside look too big... of course not! We all know its NOT the pants but whose going to tell the truth on this one? Not this child! I guess I will be cast into the eternal flame when I croak, but somehow I just cant bring myself to be 100 percent honest every time. I have looked and I cant find the scripture that says all lying is a sin. Anyone happen to have it handy?


Do these pants make my but look fat :catfight: No then shut up don't fall for every thing that tempts you .  As in this answer no the pants have nothing to do with it , your butt would look fat if you were buck necked .

Here's you sign and there is the dog house :runforhills:

Handy verse . John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

Murphy625 said:


> Speak for yourself... I was born perfect.. It was all down hill from there but I started out perfect!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I probably should have sent that answer to Willow in a private message - LOL. I wasn't trying to stir the pot or derail the thread. But since I have been a member on this board, Willow has always been very gracious to answer every one of my questions in a very honest and polite way and so I try to return that favor whenever she poses a question directly to me as well. 

I sense a bit of antagonist in the way your questions are phrased but I will answer them to the best of my ability anyway.

I am not Catholic. Most of my family is Southern Baptist, but I like to visit and listen to Pastors from different denominations as well. When I was a young one (and mercy that was a long time ago) I was only forced to attend church when I visited my Dad once or twice per year. Yes, I said forced. And I was sure to apply the appropriate amount of eye rolling and class disruption to make sure everyone there knew I was not there by choice. It was not until some very desperate times during my teen years that I cried out to God and felt the beginnings of an actual relationship begin to stir. For me it was a very slow evolution, but I think that is true for most people. I am certain I was on a path to death by some stupid drunken stunt or suicide, so I am grateful to be where I am today.

How many hours of study...the only honest answer to that is "not nearly enough". I haven't logged the hours so I cannot give you a real time answer. I do know that now that I do have a relationship with God, I very much regret all those years of eye rolling. I truly did not understand what I was missing. I know it isn't for everyone, but I have found it is most definitely for me. But even with that, we all go through ebb and flow cycles so to speak. You may be on fire and super focused on dealing with issues in your life or helping others with some need for a while and then you kind of burn out for a time and just kind of coast a bit. It is difficult to find a level pace so we tend to have ups and downs.

"How old is the earth?". LOL - this is my brother's very favorite question when he is in full blown attack Christianity mode. And I frustrate him to no end because the honest answer to that is - "I don't care." I have heard all the theories about whether the word "day" really means 24 hours or a period of time. My brother loves to trot this out because....SCIENCE! I mean who can argue with a bunch of fallible humans who don't always agree with each other and sometimes change their mind when they discover something they didn't know about before. (of course he throws that same argument at me about Christians so nobody wins there). I once spent a short amount of time trying to wrap my head around it all, and then realized that an answer to that question would not affect my belief system in any way. More importantly, I really need to be focusing what time I do study on learning about things that I need to change in my life. I was not born with all the answers, I will never have all the answers in this present life, and I am totally ok with that


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Seriously? ???


----------

