Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

[Jon88]

I see. You actually want government sanctioned discrimination against churches.

More irony.

Hey, I just saw an ambulance drive by. How quick can you be here?

 

[Bluenoser]

I'm all for gays getting married and receiving the same benefits but you shouldn't make the church have to do the marriage.

 

[jnday]

Marriage is between a man and women. You people are going to Hell for supporting this mess.

 

[JBond]

No you don't.

So you are fine with the United Way CEO Brian Gallagher skimming more than a million off the top every year, but want to punish small churches because you are an atheist?

The hate is strong in you.

 

[2233boys]

I'm all for gays getting married and receiving the same benefits but you shouldn't make the church have to do the marriage.

I agree that is wrong

 

[Jon88]

So you are fine with the United Way CEO Brian Gallagher skimming more than a million off the top every year, but want to punish small churches because you are an atheist?

The hate is strong in you.

I'm not for anyone stealing.

And I can't stand religion. It's manmade, it lowers peoples intelligence, and crooks make money from it.

 

[Bluenoser]

Marriage is between a man and women. You people are going to Hell for supporting this mess.

Then so should the men and women that are not religious that are making a mockery of it. Marriage is not seen as a religious ceremony anymore.

 

[lons]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the government decides what a religion can believe (The Pilgrims came over for that very reason and kicked the Country off with that, thus the irony) And you can not have religion making the government bend to it's will either.

A lot of the confusion here is that the Government has adopted the word marriage from religion. Make the form you file out and the license you receive from the Government be called, "Civil Union" license and this all goes away. That way anyone can Civilly Union their same sex partner, their dog, their tree, whatever the Government decides is fine. And churches can marry whomever they want as it is just a ceremony. Hell would create a brand new business in that folks would finally understand that you are married as soon as you have the damn "Civil Union" paper work done and can't get married by a chimp at the zoo and it wouldn't matter, because you are already contractually obligated to the other person as soon as the paperwork is fucking filed.

 

[VTA]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the government decides what a religion can believe (The Pilgrims came over for that very reason and kicked the Country off with that, thus the irony) And you can not have religion making the government bend to it's will either.

A lot of the confusion here is that the Government has adopted the word marriage from religion. Make the form you file out and the license you receive from the Government be called, "Civil Union" license and this all goes away. That way anyone can Civilly Union their same sex partner, their dog, their tree, whatever the Government decides is fine. And churches can marry whomever they want as it is just a ceremony. Hell would create a brand new business in that folks would finally understand that you are married as soon as you have the damn "Civil Union" paper work done and can't get married by a chimp at the zoo and it wouldn't matter, because you are already contractually obligated to the other person as soon as the paperwork is fucking filed.

It's pretty clear by now this has nothing to do with 'marriage' and civil partnerships. That has been handed to them already.

 

[VTA]

Anyone supporting this garbage has no clue what they're letting them selves in for. It has nothing to do with 'equality'.


When people want to blab that our military can't be overcome and an invasion is a ludicrous idea. Wait until it's been dispirited with this awful shit and the will to fight for these animals is gone.

CHRISTIAN AIRMAN PUNISHED BY LESBIAN COMMANDER FACES POSSIBLE COURT MARTIAL

Updating our earlier report on Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a Christian serving in the Air Force whose unit is now commanded by a lesbian: according to Monk’s complaint filed with his superiors, he was relieved of duty for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage.

Link


Need more be said?


‘I am still not getting what I want’: Gay couple suing church for refusing ‘wedding’

LONDON, August 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Less than two weeks after the coalition government’s gay “marriage” bill was signed into law, a homosexual man has launched a lawsuit against a Church of England parish in Maldon for refusing him and his civil partner the lavish church wedding of their dreams. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle that he has launched the suit because, despite the law, “I am still not getting what I want.”

Link

 

[junk]

What do any of these response really have to do with the issue? Are you going to nod your heads to awful laws because you don't share the same beliefs as someone else? Who in this world is ever forced to rent space to anybody and why should a church be forced to rent space to anybody?

Good point actually. Tax exempt status is completely different issue.

However, to answer your question "Why should a church be forced to rent space to anybody"? Federal Civil Rights Act, I would assume. I'm not a lawyer. Would the outrage be the same if the church was renting to women or blacks? Granted, I don't think that applies to homosexuals yet, but I think it is just a matter of time.

They want to charge rent and act like a "business"by generating revenue, but they don't want to be treated the same as other businesses. As in, they don't want to pay taxes and want to exclude certain classes of people.

Imagine the outrage if a restaurant denied you service because you were Christian.

 

[Jon88]

Exactly

 

[VTA]

Good point actually. Tax exempt status is completely different issue.

However, to answer your question "Why should a church be forced to rent space to anybody"? Federal Civil Rights Act, I would assume. I'm not a lawyer. Would the outrage be the same if the church was renting to women or blacks? Granted, I don't think that applies to homosexuals yet, but I think it is just a matter of time.

They want to charge rent and act like a "business"by generating revenue, but they don't want to be treated the same as other businesses. As in, they don't want to pay taxes and want to exclude certain classes of people.

Imagine the outrage if a restaurant denied you service because you were Christian.

They're not acting like a business, they're subletting their space in certain instances to raise cash for their non-profit entity. There's a difference. Their 'business' isn't renting, like a restaurant's is providing food.

Church's aren't businesses and their focus is specifically something else entirely. They don't function like a product commodity exchange and forcing them to is oppression. Can they be forced to 'rent' their facility to a porn production crew? Should they be? Can an organization like the NAACP have it's tax status yanked because it's discriminatory?

When you lose a business or a position and are threatened with legal action over your right to a belief and it's resultant lifestyle, civil rights have been tossed in favor of persecution. For what? Being forced to support something you don't agree with? This has nothing to do with discrimination and equality.

The people supporting this are fine right now, because it hasn't touched them, but it's short-sighted to ignore that allowing these redefinitions of what is business and discrimination are going to have awful effects for everyone.

 

[2233boys]

Anyone supporting this garbage has no clue what they're letting them selves in for. It has nothing to do with 'equality'.


When people want to blab that our military can't be overcome and an invasion is a ludicrous idea. Wait until it's been dispirited with this awful shit and the will to fight for these animals is gone.

CHRISTIAN AIRMAN PUNISHED BY LESBIAN COMMANDER FACES POSSIBLE COURT MARTIAL




Link

. He isn't facing a court martial for being a Christian or for refusing to say gay marriage is ok. He also only believes he was let go from his position because of his beliefs. He is being court martial for making those statements to the press. The dig is whether or not those statements are official statements. If his statements are found to be untrue he could be in trouble regardless if they deem those statements to the press official or not.

Need more be said?


‘I am still not getting what I want’: Gay couple suing church for refusing ‘wedding’



Link

I don't agree that churches should be forced but since the Church of England is the nations established/state recognized church/religion of their country they may have a case. However the guy in the lawsuit is the worst kind of Whiner.

 

[2233boys]

They're not acting like a business, they're subletting their space in certain instances to raise cash for their non-profit entity. There's a difference. Their 'business' isn't renting, like a restaurant's is providing food.

Church's aren't businesses and their focus is specifically something else entirely. They don't function like a product commodity exchange and forcing them to is oppression. Can they be forced to 'rent' their facility to a porn production crew? Should they be? Can an organization like the NAACP have it's tax status yanked because it's discriminatory?

When you lose a business or a position and are threatened with legal action over your right to a belief and it's resultant lifestyle, civil rights have been tossed in favor of persecution. For what? Being forced to support something you don't agree with? This has nothing to do with discrimination and equality.

The people supporting this are fine right now, because it hasn't touched them, but it's short-sighted to ignore that allowing these redefinitions of what is business and discrimination are going to have awful effects for everyone.

Stop renting out the space, and only allow members of the church to marry in your church. Problem solved. That is what our church does.

 

[VTA]

. He isn't facing a court martial for being a Christian or for refusing to say gay marriage is ok. He also only believes he was let go from his position because of his beliefs. He is being court martial for making those statements to the press. The dig is whether or not those statements are official statements. If his statements are found to be untrue he could be in trouble regardless if they deem those statements to the press official or not.

Whatever way it can be portrayed doesn't change what's at the heart of the matter.A lesbian commander who became confrontational about his faith and what followed after is. He might be doing it intentionally to bring to the public what is happening, but the larger picture is, if this is what is happening n our military8, we'd better get used the idea of it shriveling up very soon. Dispiriting our military.

And that guy suing the church isn't the worst kind of whiner, he's just more honest about the intent.

 

[VTA]

Stop renting out the space, and only allow members of the church to marry in your church. Problem solved. That is what our church does.

I thought the same, but really, how far are you going to be restricted to avoid the confrontation? They're not a commodity and service provider and if they own the building there's no excuse for forcing them to do anything that contradicts their right to practice what they preach.

 

[JBond]

Good point actually. Tax exempt status is completely different issue.

However, to answer your question "Why should a church be forced to rent space to anybody"? Federal Civil Rights Act, I would assume. I'm not a lawyer. Would the outrage be the same if the church was renting to women or blacks? Granted, I don't think that applies to homosexuals yet, but I think it is just a matter of time.

They want to charge rent and act like a "business"by generating revenue, but they don't want to be treated the same as other businesses. As in, they don't want to pay taxes and want to exclude certain classes of people.

Imagine the outrage if a restaurant denied you service because you were Christian.

This is not gender or race discrimination. Personal habits should not be placed on the same level as those categories. This is about a group of people that disagree with a chosen lifestyle and do not wanted to be associated with it. You still appear to be confusing non-profits with businesses regarding your restaurant question. Now there have been cases of restaurants that have rented space to Christians and then made them leave because of the churches Christian belief system. So that has already happened. What you did not see in that case, is the church trying to destroy the restaurant like in the case of the bakery in the other thread.

Link to Church Story
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...t-evicted-christian-church-from-rented-space/

Church response to the situation:

We enjoy friendships with the individuals who work at Hill Country Barbecue Market and appreciate their willingness to host our church for the season they did. We had a month-to-month lease with the restaurant, which they chose to not renew. Some of the news reports have used the term “eviction” – this was not our term, nor is it the best description of their decision. Though this saddened us, we understood and respected their decision. We’ve also been saddened by the hateful and hostile things that have been written about this restaurant as a response to hearing our story. Please join us, Gallery Church in responding with neighborly love and grace toward our friends at Hill Country Barbecue Market. We look forward to continuing our friendships, finding tangible ways to bless our neighbors, and will continue to eat at Hill Country Barbecue Market.

http://gallerychurch.com/?p=2005

 

[junk]

Church's aren't businesses and their focus is specifically something else entirely. They don't function like a product commodity exchange and forcing them to is oppression. Can they be forced to 'rent' their facility to a porn production crew? Should they be?

Here is where your argument falls apart. No, they can't be forced to rent to a porn production crew. They could state that they don't want rent for purposes that are sexual in nature. The difference is that applies to ALL groups and isn't discriminating against one. That is where the ridiculous drag show argument falls apart as well.

But to say you are going to exclude one group, when you'd include any other group with a handful of cash, is discrimination in my mind.

When you lose a business or a position and are threatened with legal action over your right to a belief and it's resultant lifestyle, civil rights have been tossed in favor of persecution. For what? Being forced to support something you don't agree with? This has nothing to do with discrimination and equality.

Wait, you are calling it a business now?

You certainly have a right to not believe in certain things. You could think homosexuals are the devil or that blacks/women are inferior to white men. Wouldn't make you a good person, but you have that right. What you don't have the right to do is exclude someone for that reason.

Now, I'd be surprised if these churches are actually renting out their church. I'd imagine this applies to some ancillary church buildings that they are offering up for rent.

Persecution though? Persecution of those that you choose to exclude?

If you want to discriminate, privatize your church buildings and quit charging rent.

The people supporting this are fine right now, because it hasn't touched them, but it's short-sighted to ignore that allowing these redefinitions of what is business and discrimination are going to have awful effects for everyone.

How is this different than Christianity? You'd flip out if I tried to exclude someone from something on the grounds of being Christian. It is a lifestyle choice just like homosexuality. I hope that people in this country always have the right to be Christian and aren't excluded from basic rights because of that choice whether I agree with it or not. Same for homosexuality.

 

[junk]

This is not gender or race discrimination. Personal habits should not be placed on the same level as those categories. This is about a group of people that disagree with a chosen lifestyle and do not wanted to be associated with it. You still appear to be confusing non-profits with businesses regarding your restaurant question. Now there have been cases of restaurants that have rented space to Christians and then made them leave because of the churches Christian belief system. So that has already happened. What you did not see in that case, is the church trying to destroy the restaurant like in the case of the bakery in the other thread.

Neither is religious discrimination. How would you feel about that?

For the record, I completely disagree with that as well.