Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

[JBond]

We don't burn crosses. You know I am black, right?

 

[Midswat]

Well whatever you judgemental discriminatory folks do to show the gays they're not welcome 'round hea.

And stop making this about race!

 

[JBond]

They are welcome to repent and for a large enough donation we will even let them enjoy a seat at our special re-education camp. We look forward to seeing you.

 

[junk]

Of course not. Firing someone is far far different then allowing them access to your personal space to propagate their practices, which contrast your own. Providing employment is based on performance of specified tasks regardless of personal habits. Providing space for people is almost always predicated on their usage of if.

So then you agree that denying access to public facilities for church services (as in the case of the Bronx church) is OK?

Or denying a Christian access to rental space in an apartment building is OK since they might pray in there?

 

[VTA]

So then you agree that denying access to public facilities for church services (as in the case of the Bronx church) is OK?

Well why are you conflating public facilities with personal facilities? A church isn't a public facility, per se. It's funded entirely by the choice of it's congregants and not through mandated taxation. If it's a public facility made available through public funds then denying anyone is discrimination. If it's not public and not paid for by tax payers it is private and there exists the right to set parameters on its use.

Or denying a Christian access to rental space in an apartment building is OK since they might pray in there?

Nope. You can't deny someone a home for those reasons. Praying in your home is like having sex in your home; your own personal business. Trying to cram a congregation into it would understandably result in problems.

 

[Jon88]

You know I am black, right?

Yeah right. They don't come much whiter than you.

 

[VTA]

Yeah right. They don't come much whiter than you.

They might.

 

[junk]

Well why are you conflating public facilities with personal facilities? A church isn't a public facility, per se. It's funded entirely by the choice of it's congregants and not through mandated taxation. If it's a public facility made available through public funds then denying anyone is discrimination. If it's not public and not paid for by tax payers it is private and there exists the right to set parameters on its use.



Nope. You can't deny someone a home for those reasons. Praying in your home is like having sex in your home; your own personal business. Trying to cram a congregation into it would understandably result in problems.

So, what I believe you are saying is that you would be in favor of the legislation was ultimately put to vote in Hutchinson?

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Anti-discrimination

After conducting three public forums, the city’s Human Relations Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the City Council amend the ordinance to provide protection for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people in all matters of employment, housing and public accommodations.

But the City Council voted 3-2 on June 5 for a compromise that provided narrower protection – only from firing from a job or eviction from a home, and only to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Transgender people were excluded. So, too, were other issues or discrimination in employment and housing. Discrimination in public accommodations was left out entirely.

Or how about the one in Salina

It had required landlords, any vendor who works for the city, and city parks and buildings to adhere to the anti-discrimination policy.

http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/07/2558845/opposition-leads-in-early-returns.html

This is the ultimate case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. This law could have been passed and no church would have ever had to open their actual church to a gay couple. Simply say "We only use our facilities for our congregation".

I mean, how many churches let other denominations marry in their church?

How about this scenario? What if a Catholic church rents their facilities to the public and a Mormon group wants to rent their facility? Religion is a protected class. Is that religious discrimination?

I better write an article "PROPOSED LAW COULD FORCE CATHOLICS TO PERFORM MORMON CEREMONIES!!!!" so JBond can post it in a year and a half.

 

[2233boys]

Good post junk I made essentially the same point earlier, but you put it more eloquently.

 

[VTA]

So, what I believe you are saying is that you would be in favor of the legislation was ultimately put to vote in Hutchinson?

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Anti-discrimination



Or how about the one in Salina



http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/07/2558845/opposition-leads-in-early-returns.html

This is the ultimate case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. This law could have been passed and no church would have ever had to open their actual church to a gay couple. Simply say "We only use our facilities for our congregation".

I mean, how many churches let other denominations marry in their church?

How about this scenario? What if a Catholic church rents their facilities to the public and a Mormon group wants to rent their facility? Religion is a protected class. Is that religious discrimination?

I better write an article "PROPOSED LAW COULD FORCE CATHOLICS TO PERFORM MORMON CEREMONIES!!!!" so JBond can post it in a year and a half.

On the face of it and in it's context (the link won't let me read it all for some reason), sure it sounds fine. The clause being PUBLIC places and housing. Though I don't get the transgender part.

If it's an ultimate case of mountain and mole hill, why have we reached this point in the discussion? Even after designating it as such, you further the discussion with another analogous scenario. I don't mind either way, I'm just noticing a bit of circular arguing going on here.

 

[Jon88]

They might.

What is that?

 

[VTA]

A black albino.

 

[VTA]

They're getting trashed in Africa to compound their problems.

 

[JBond]

I better write an article "PROPOSED LAW COULD FORCE CATHOLICS TO PERFORM MORMON CEREMONIES!!!!" so JBond can post it in a year and a half.

I already explained why I posted it. Go ahead and continue to stick your head in the sand. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Maybe we should make alcoholics a special class....oh wait, we already did. Creating special protections for people based on their personal habits is not a wise idea.

What other special laws would you like? Who else needs to be saved by the government?

 

[Jon88]

They're getting trashed in Africa to compound their problems.

I'm glad we send Billions of dollars over there. Just like throwing your money into a dumpster.

It's not like we could use the money to pay off our debt or anything.

 

[VTA]

I'm glad we send Billions of dollars over there. Just like throwing your money into a dumpster.

It's not like we could use the money to pay off our debt or anything.

Truth.

 

[junk]

On the face of it and in it's context (the link won't let me read it all for some reason), sure it sounds fine. The clause being PUBLIC places and housing. Though I don't get the transgender part.

If it's an ultimate case of mountain and mole hill, why have we reached this point in the discussion? Even after designating it as such, you further the discussion with another analogous scenario. I don't mind either way, I'm just noticing a bit of circular arguing going on here.

No circular logic. You were the ones that were talking about how awful the legislation in the original article was

You've now agreed it is acceptable. I consider my point proven

 

[junk]

I already explained why I posted it. Go ahead and continue to stick your head in the sand. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Maybe we should make alcoholics a special class....oh wait, we already did. Creating special protections for people based on their personal habits is not a wise idea.

Personal habits? Like religion?

 

[Bluenoser]

I have a feeling at the end of this one group will say, "yeah, you were right I was wrong."

 

[Jon88]

I don't think anyone will budge.