Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

[VTA]

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.


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.


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.

Maybe you can be clearer here… You say they can exclude a production crew, then go on to say they're taking in any group with cash except this one and it's discrimination. It's obviously not just a gay group then, if they can refuse the production crew. They set certain standards and it's their right. Can they refuse a Wiccan group? Or one that openly identifies with satan worship? Should they be forced to rent to them?

No I'm not calling it a business, I was referencing the bakery.

You really shouldn't try to link racial and gender issues with personal habit issues or imply that the dislike for certain behaviors somehow means you don't like people based on race or gender. Let's not make irresponsible inferences about people.

And yes, when you begin to force people to submit their own property against their will and freedoms it becomes persecution. If a church has it's physical structure, it has what it has; the group of homosexuals that wants to celebrate something has a host of options at it's disposal without trying to force someone to accept their presence in their building. It's obvious this has nothing to do with equal rights, when they are not globally discriminated against with no where to go. They just wish to force themselves on a people who want nothing to do with their lifestyle. That's persecution.

How is what different from Christianity? Christianity isn't demanding laws be redefined to keep homo's from being homo's. As far as I can tell, they don't want them bringing it to the church and they are perfectly correct and within the freedoms they should enjoy to practice their religion.

And this exclusion isn't universal, it's simply based on religious conviction in a religious temple, so to speak. Would they take kindly to a Christian evangelizing in one of their gay bars? Holding sermons expounding on God's view of homosexuality? How well would that turn out do you think? Aren't they just bigots if they wouldn't allow it?

 

[junk]

Maybe you can be clearer here… You say they can exclude a production crew, then go on to say they're taking in any group with cash except this one and it's discrimination. It's obviously not just a gay group then, if they can refuse the production crew. They set certain standards and it's their right. Can they refuse a Wiccan group? Or one that openly identifies with satan worship? Should they be forced to rent to them?

Again, the way I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) is that you can exclude someone based upon a behavior if it is something that is not unique to a certain class of people. Saying "You can't shoot porn here" applies no matter what your race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It'd be the same as saying "You can't have a rock band in here" or "You can't have a slip and slide contest in here".

On the other hand, saying that a lesbian book club can't rent your facilities is excluding them simply because they are lesbians would probably be discrimination under this law.

You really shouldn't try to link racial and gender issues with personal habit issues or imply that the dislike for certain behaviors somehow means you don't like people based on race or gender. Let's not make irresponsible inferences about people.

It isn't irresponsible at all. It is based upon this country's federal discrimination laws which attempt to prohibit discrimination based upon "race, color, religion or national origin". Although I agree that race, color and national origin are not personal habit issues, homosexuality and religion are.

Things are trending towards grouping sexual preference into discrimination laws. In some states, they already are. This is covered in California under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, I think this is what the intent of the law in Kansas is. However, this article is somewhat incendiary as it implies that this would force churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies (per the title). If you take the time to read the article, there is nothing in the law that says that.

The article itself says "According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”.

Again, do churches typically rent the actual church?

And yes, when you begin to force people to submit their own property against their will and freedoms it becomes persecution. If a church has it's physical structure, it has what it has; the group of homosexuals that wants to celebrate something has a host of options at it's disposal without trying to force someone to accept their presence in their building. It's obvious this has nothing to do with equal rights, when they are not globally discriminated against with no where to go. They just wish to force themselves on a people who want nothing to do with their lifestyle. That's persecution.

They aren't being forced to "submit their property". They are being forced to treat one class of people like any other.

Again, do they rent their church out? If not, this is a bunch of fuss about nothing. My guess is this is just an article written in an incendiary manner and, unfortunately, being taken as gospel by those who agree with certain forms of discrimination.

How is what different from Christianity? Christianity isn't demanding laws be redefined to keep homo's from being homo's. As far as I can tell, they don't want them bringing it to the church and they are perfectly correct and within the freedoms they should enjoy to practice their religion.

Homosexuality, like Christianity, is a lifestyle choice. Do you want to be discriminated against because of your religion? As far as I can tell, this law would only prevent homosexuals from renting a building that is available for anyone else to rent.

And this exclusion isn't universal, it's simply based on religious conviction in a religious temple, so to speak. Would they take kindly to a Christian evangelizing in one of their gay bars? Holding sermons expounding on God's view of homosexuality? How well would that turn out do you think? Aren't they just bigots if they wouldn't allow it?

Christians are allowed in gay bars. If they weren't, it'd be discrimination.

If they disrupt the business, then they'd have every right to throw them out. Just like if a homosexual entered a church service and disrupted it.

However, if a lesbian book club wanted to rent a room at a church, that is available to anyone else, and were denied simply because they were homosexual, it'd be discrimination in my mind.

 

[2233boys]

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.

If you don't act like a business I'd wager you wouldn't be treated like one. What I posted solved your issue.

 

[2233boys]

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.

We don't know what happened, I didn't see details in your article I may have missed it. I saw someone saying he believed that is why he was removed from his duties. It seems you are accepting what one person says as gospel before knowing the facts because it supports your position. I could be wrong.

 

[VTA]

Again, the way I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) is that you can exclude someone based upon a behavior if it is something that is not unique to a certain class of people. Saying "You can't shoot porn here" applies no matter what your race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It'd be the same as saying "You can't have a rock band in here" or "You can't have a slip and slide contest in here".

On the other hand, saying that a lesbian book club can't rent your facilities is excluding them simply because they are lesbians would probably be discrimination under this law.


It isn't irresponsible at all. It is based upon this country's federal discrimination laws which attempt to prohibit discrimination based upon "race, color, religion or national origin". Although I agree that race, color and national origin are not personal habit issues, homosexuality and religion are.

Things are trending towards grouping sexual preference into discrimination laws. In some states, they already are. This is covered in California under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, I think this is what the intent of the law in Kansas is. However, this article is somewhat incendiary as it implies that this would force churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies (per the title). If you take the time to read the article, there is nothing in the law that says that.

The article itself says "According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”.

Again, do churches typically rent the actual church?


They aren't being forced to "submit their property". They are being forced to treat one class of people like any other.

Again, do they rent their church out? If not, this is a bunch of fuss about nothing. My guess is this is just an article written in an incendiary manner and, unfortunately, being taken as gospel by those who agree with certain forms of discrimination.


Homosexuality, like Christianity, is a lifestyle choice. Do you want to be discriminated against because of your religion? As far as I can tell, this law would only prevent homosexuals from renting a building that is available for anyone else to rent.


Christians are allowed in gay bars. If they weren't, it'd be discrimination.

If they disrupt the business, then they'd have every right to throw them out. Just like if a homosexual entered a church service and disrupted it.

However, if a lesbian book club wanted to rent a room at a church, that is available to anyone else, and were denied simply because they were homosexual, it'd be discrimination in my mind.

And who is homosexuality unique to? It's simply a behavior that transcends class, gender, race, etc. It's the behavior itself that is objected to, as well as the actions pursuant to that behavior. Like promoting it within the church, through expressly gay meetings. Again, will a church be forced to rent out to a satanic cult selling it's books? What exactly is the difference? Why can't satanists become a protected class? Both groups engage in behavior that is not unique to any class of people yet are prohibited and go against the very purpose of the church.

You tied belief in God with thinking blacks/women are inferior to white men as rights. I'm not sure why or how you'd made such a link considering that the church is full of different races and women.

If the judicial system wishes to recognize sexual preference, that's solely their prerogative, yet to force religious institutions to do so is in no way anything other than an unconstitutional use of force.

It's not an incendiary article, it's based on a law being pushed through in Kansas. No one is making it up, it states plainly that a church that allows it's space to be rented has to compromise on this issue. If they don't want their temple used to promote something diametrically opposed to what they stand for that's their right. If it isn't then how can they disallow pimps and pornographers?

It'd be a great test to approach the owners of gay bars and try to rent it's space for Sunday service of genuine biblical doctrine.

 

[VTA]

If you don't act like a business I'd wager you wouldn't be treated like one. What I posted solved your issue.

Raising funds isn't acting like a business. The portion that would make it so - profiteering - is missing. The church raises funds for it's simple existence and for charity work. To think it's fine to limit their ability to do so is a horrible idea. It's an indirect way of short changing the people who benefit from their charitable work. We're not talking jokers like Benny Hinn ad Robert Schuler, we're talking genuine small churches that need all they can raise to continue supporting missions and their charities.

 

[VTA]

We don't know what happened, I didn't see details in your article I may have missed it. I saw someone saying he believed that is why he was removed from his duties. It seems you are accepting what one person says as gospel before knowing the facts because it supports your position. I could be wrong.

I'm accepting the complaint that he filed is accurate and I have no doubt it is, because his claim is not disputed, his actions of talking to the press about it are what has him in trouble. And if talking to the press is what it takes, despite the consequences, good for him.

If it were simple and rare instances, it'd be easy to gloss over, but are they simple instances? You have laws proposed to make churches compromise their beliefs; a business forced to shut down and problems within the military. At some point don't you think you should connect the dots?

 

[VTA]

Gee, I wonder if this is discriminatory...? Prohibiting a business to grow because of the constitutionally protected right of it's CEO's profession of faith and doctrine.

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Ald.Proco "Joe" Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

Link

Of course he made an odd statement afterward to confirm why he was denying them the right to do business there...

CHICAGO (CBS) — The local Chick-Fil-A controversy seemed to be settled around this time last week, when Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st) said he had made peace with the fast food chain, following what he said was its new pledge regarding gay rights issues.

But following a statement by Chick-Fil-A saying it had made no “concessions,” the heated controversy has erupted again. Moreno is now reconsidering his decision to give Chick-Fil-A his blessing.

Link

Of course a year later, the site sits empty with no revenue generated...

It has been just over a year since Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno and Mayor Rahm Emanuel first took a stand against the privately owned food chain Chick-Fil-A, due to the owner Dan Cathy’s Christian faith and unfavorable view of same-sex marriage.

Moreno claimed “Aldermanic Privilege,” to deny Chick-Fil-A a zoning variance which would have allowed subdividing an unused portion of a Home Depot parking lot to open the restaurant. As a result, an uproar over freedom of religion spanned across the entire country, as supporters of the fast food chain waited hours to buy chicken sandwiches in a massive show of support for the first amendment against Moreno's progressive-bully tactics.

Thanks to Moreno’s prejudice against Cathy’s First Amendment "protected" religious freedom, the proposed site for the restaurant, in a busy industrial and big-box commercial corridor, is sits for sale, vacant with no more than a pile of rubble and overgrown weeds, bordered by a dilapidated and incomplete chain link fence. It is estimated that as many as 200 temporary and permanent, full and part-time jobs could have been affected by Alderman Moreno's actions.

Link

 

[2233boys]

Raising funds isn't acting like a business. The portion that would make it so - profiteering - is missing. The church raises funds for it's simple existence and for charity work. To think it's fine to limit their ability to do so is a horrible idea. It's an indirect way of short changing the people who benefit from their charitable work. We're not talking jokers like Benny Hinn ad Robert Schuler, we're talking genuine small churches that need all they can raise to continue supporting missions and their charities.

Renting out their facilities aren't a part of a churches mission so renting/allowing use to only church members wouldn't change their mission whatsoever. Our church didn't make the change because of the repeal of DOMA or gay marriage.

 

[2233boys]

I'm accepting the complaint that he filed is accurate and I have no doubt it is, because his claim is not disputed, his actions of talking to the press about it are what has him in trouble. And if talking to the press is what it takes, despite the consequences, good for him.

If it were simple and rare instances, it'd be easy to gloss over, but are they simple instances? You have laws proposed to make churches compromise their beliefs; a business forced to shut down and problems within the military. At some point don't you think you should connect the dots?

Your example of a law change forcing churches to marry gay coupled wasn't even in this country. If their is an active investigation of his job performance I'm not sure they could just tell the general public more than they did. You accept his account as accurate because it fits your agenda. I've fired people and disciplined people at work before. I can't discuss with anyone but them the reasoning for moving on or talk with anyone about why their duties were changed.

 

[junk]

And who is homosexuality unique to? It's simply a behavior that transcends class, gender, race, etc. It's the behavior itself that is objected to, as well as the actions pursuant to that behavior.

It is unique to homosexuals. Technically, religion also transcends class, gender, race, etc. as well.

Like promoting it within the church, through expressly gay meetings. Again, will a church be forced to rent out to a satanic cult selling it's books? What exactly is the difference? Why can't satanists become a protected class? Both groups engage in behavior that is not unique to any class of people yet are prohibited and go against the very purpose of the church.

A satanic cult would be a religion, correct? So, yes, it would probably be discriminatory to exclude satanists.

You tied belief in God with thinking blacks/women are inferior to white men as rights. I'm not sure why or how you'd made such a link considering that the church is full of different races and women.

The only reason I linked them is because they are linked by this country's civil rights laws. Again, ""race, color, religion or national origin"

If the judicial system wishes to recognize sexual preference, that's solely their prerogative, yet to force religious institutions to do so is in no way anything other than an unconstitutional use of force.

So, again, put the shoe on the other foot and think about the slippery slope you start down. Let's assume religion, for example. Is forcing an institution (any institution, take your pick) to recognize religion an unconstitutional use of force?

I assume, if that is your stance, you would be OK with excluding people from activities based upon religious affiliation then?

It's not an incendiary article, it's based on a law being pushed through in Kansas. No one is making it up, it states plainly that a church that allows it's space to be rented has to compromise on this issue. If they don't want their temple used to promote something diametrically opposed to what they stand for that's their right. If it isn't then how can they disallow pimps and pornographers?

Sure, it is incendiary. I'm not sure you even really understand the law or the implications. This very type of law is in place in California already (Unruh, as I mentioned). Are churches there being forced into hosting gay marriages and drag shows?

As far as pimps and pornographers, we already went over this. Excluding pornographers doesn't exclude a particular class of people. Pornographers could be any race, any religion, any gender, any sexual preference.

It'd be a great test to approach the owners of gay bars and try to rent it's space for Sunday service of genuine biblical doctrine.

Sure, if a gay bar rents out space and denies someone to rent based upon their religious beliefs, I would absolutely call that discriminatory. I think you're getting my point here.

 

[VTA]

Renting out their facilities aren't a part of a churches mission so renting/allowing use to only church members wouldn't change their mission whatsoever. Our church didn't make the change because of the repeal of DOMA or gay marriage.

I'm not sure what you're even saying here. Taking away an avenue of raising funds does affect a church's mission.

 

[VTA]

Your example of a law change forcing churches to marry gay coupled wasn't even in this country.

So?

If their is an active investigation of his job performance I'm not sure they could just tell the general public more than they did. You accept his account as accurate because it fits your agenda. I've fired people and disciplined people at work before. I can't discuss with anyone but them the reasoning for moving on or talk with anyone about why their duties were changed.

There isn't an active investigation into his job performance, they're investigating him for his public speaking after he filed his complaint, which so far has gone unquestioned and not denied.

 

[VTA]

It is unique to homosexuals. Technically, religion also transcends class, gender, race, etc. as well.


A satanic cult would be a religion, correct? So, yes, it would probably be discriminatory to exclude satanists.


The only reason I linked them is because they are linked by this country's civil rights laws. Again, ""race, color, religion or national origin"


So, again, put the shoe on the other foot and think about the slippery slope you start down. Let's assume religion, for example. Is forcing an institution (any institution, take your pick) to recognize religion an unconstitutional use of force?

I assume, if that is your stance, you would be OK with excluding people from activities based upon religious affiliation then?


Sure, it is incendiary. I'm not sure you even really understand the law or the implications. This very type of law is in place in California already (Unruh, as I mentioned). Are churches there being forced into hosting gay marriages and drag shows?

As far as pimps and pornographers, we already went over this. Excluding pornographers doesn't exclude a particular class of people. Pornographers could be any race, any religion, any gender, any sexual preference.


Sure, if a gay bar rents out space and denies someone to rent based upon their religious beliefs, I would absolutely call that discriminatory. I think you're getting my point here.

That really makes little sense. Sexual preference isn't a class of people. There is no unique trait prevalent but for their habits. It's like saying smokers are somehow to be classed because despite that anyone can do so they are really unique. Below you're saying that pimps and pornographers can be any race, gender, etc, yet so can homo's. You want to talk slippery slopes, think of the one where people are classed by their sexual preferences and where that's already heading.

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals
Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation

by Jack Minor –

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago."

Link

But if sexual preference leads to being a protected class then being heterosexual should be a protected class and the DOMA should not have been repealed. If a sexual preference lifestyle becomes such a thing, then all things being equal, it must apply to heterosexuals, their social practices of marriage and the obvious exclusivity of propagating the species.

It would be almost as ridiculous to think it's anything but logical to ban satan worship in a church.

I would reject any religion that would use force to evangelize or submission to it. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion as well as freedom to maintain the doctrines of your religion without being forced to compromise.

Reporting a proposed law in progress isn't incendiary, pretending to need to have a meeting in a place that's opposed to your behavior is. Are you sure this Unruh business includes churches? In fact a quick search turns up this: Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be.

So I'm not really sure why it's relevant.

 

[2233boys]

I'm not sure what you're even saying here. Taking away an avenue of raising funds does affect a church's mission.

You still have that avenue just a smaller audience. Not sure about where your from but around here, most churches don't rent their churches out to non members. Beyond that there are other avenues to earn revenue to accomplish your churches mission that don't involve whoring out your facilities to the general public.

 

[2233boys]

So?

you're an alarmist

There isn't an active investigation into his job performance, they're investigating him for his public speaking after he filed his complaint, which so far has gone unquestioned and not denied.

It may have already been decided that it was Bs. Regardless if it is active or not, employers aren't going to discuss their findings with the public. That's the point. There very well may be something to his complaint but you assumption that it is true fits your agenda.

 

[2233boys]

All that said I do agree churches/pastors shouldn't be forced to marry homosexual couples if it is a clear violation if their religious values. I don't think it would happen in this country because of the "separation of church and state" interpretation of the constitution.

 

[VTA]

You still have that avenue just a smaller audience.

?

Not sure about where your from but around here, most churches don't rent their churches out to non members. Beyond that there are other avenues to earn revenue to accomplish your churches mission that don't involve whoring out your facilities to the general public.

I'm not really sure why you would think it's ok to force anyone to either have to compromise their belief or lose an aspect of fund raising. Sure there are other ways; but is it right to force them into these situations? There are other ways for you to make a living, should you be forced to either compromise yourself or go get another job, because someone is giving you an unfair ultimatum?

 

[VTA]

you're an alarmist


It may have already been decided that it was Bs. Regardless if it is active or not, employers aren't going to discuss their findings with the public. That's the point. There very well may be something to his complaint but you assumption that it is true fits your agenda.

No I'm someone commenting on current events concerning a specific topic being discussed.
I'm not sure you really have a grasp on what an 'agenda' is. If citing examples to back an argument is either alarmist or indicative of 'an agenda', what else is there beyond ad hominem talking points, not backed by fact?

 

[2233boys]

You are citing examples from another country that has nothing to do with what is happening in on our country and you are presuming an accusation is fact, when you have no idea if the situation is accurate, so it fits your argument.