Faster than I predicted

[babe]

I don't see the Washington (aka Moonie) Times as being much more significant, but in any case, it was clear from their article that this is a public business, not a church.

Non-profits, including churches, are supposed to be politically neutral. If pastors are overtly supporting one political candidate/position/vote over another while acting on behalf of that church, they are violating that law.

None of this is new. There has been no sloping.

wll, sloping is always a matter of choosing the coordinate system in a manner that makes "progress" look like the same old thing. The time-honored progressive strategy of "gradualism" has always been a pretty steep slope against Christianity.

You've got a choice. . . . . you can imagine you're God, or you can imagine somebody else is. Saying there is no God is the same thing as saying you. . . or 'we' are the only relevant "god". The so-called "secular" claim has always been a claim for the government's right to establish the values of society.

keep it up, bro. Pretty soom you'll be walking on the ceiling.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://allenbwest.com/2014/10/christian-persecution-idaho-city-forces-pastors-marry-gays/

As reported by the Washington Times, “Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

Does anyone know exactly how the ordinance is worded?

 

[Stoked]

It's called pushing an agenda, bro.

hmmmmm. . . . . .

probably everybody except Trout does a little of that. It's why we come here. I know I pushed my take to the ultimate extreme I could make of it. So would you have changed your thinking on my account if I had said, for example, that you were making an extreme tangent of your own on your lead-up comment calling out the person you were responding to, highland homie I think it was, on his extreme statement about wishing people could just do business on their own terms and notions with whoever they wished, no matter who they are?

you dished it out, then felt it was uncalled for coming back atcha.

Actually, no. I was not calling him out at all, I was getting clarification.

Now, the reason I was getting clarification, was to see if Highland had the same exact position as I do. Turns out he does. But if you had read my comment before that one you would have seen that.

So in short, yes you did read to much into it, in addition to not reading the full convo, and as a result you placed me on the wrong side. This has nothing to do with dishing it out or taking it.

I absolutely agree with HH in that if any personally owned business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason, they should be able to. I do not like the idea of judges and legislators controlling that.

The bolded part above is a position I have stated several times in several threads. So please, continue to tell me how I believe Judges and Legislators should be able to control that accoring to their own personal beliefs.

 

[franklin]

Guys, let's talk about the lesbian mayor of Austin, TX who tried to subpoena all homosexual sermons. That one is totally credible as well.

 

[Stoked]

Guys, let's talk about the lesbian mayor of Austin, TX who tried to subpoena all homosexual sermons. That one is totally credible as well.

Houston.

Read today that she ordered the subpoenas to be narrowed in scope.

 

[Nate505]

Actually, no. I was not calling him out at all, I was getting clarification.

Now, the reason I was getting clarification, was to see if Highland had the same exact position as I do. Turns out he does. But if you had read my comment before that one you would have seen that.

So in short, yes you did read to much into it, in addition to not reading the full convo, and as a result you placed me on the wrong side. This has nothing to do with dishing it out or taking it.

I absolutely agree with HH in that if any personally owned business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason, they should be able to. I do not like the idea of judges and legislators controlling that.

The bolded part above is a position I have stated several times in several threads. So please, continue to tell me how I believe Judges and Legislators should be able to control that accoring to their own personal beliefs.

That idea makes me sick personally.

If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.

Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.

So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.

 

[HighlandHomie]

That idea makes me sick personally.

If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.

Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.

So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

 

[Harambe]

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

Better off is an interesting statement. Couldn't you say the community would be better off accepting others of different backgrounds and beliefs?

Every HR department I've ever worked for seems to think this is the case.

 

[Nate505]

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

Maybe the guy was born there and doesn't want to leave, or doesn't have the financial means to do so.

I'm extremely opposed to a country that can run people out of town through denying them goods/services just because the owners of the business are bigoted jagoffs. On most things I'm pretty libertarian, but in this instance the Feds and state have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of their citizens by intervening.

 

[One Brow]

You should be able to imo

Regardless, the point is that gay marriages are being treated the same as straight marriages, not differently.

 

[One Brow]

wll, sloping is always a matter of choosing the coordinate system in a manner that makes "progress" look like the same old thing.

Here, there is no "progress" on the infringement of rights, in fact, no change at all.

 

[Gameface]

Aren't there ways around this? Sure, if you're open to the public then you have to serve the public, but can't they become a club or organization of some sort that can choose who their members are?

Like how can night clubs turn away ugly people and let in hotties?

 

[MVP]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

 

[One Brow]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

Religious servants, acting for their religion, do not have to marry them.

 

[The Midnight]

Wow.. whatever happened to freedom of religion (provided it doesn't harm others)???

 

[The Midnight]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

This.

 

[One Brow]

Wow.. whatever happened to freedom of religion (provided it doesn't harm others)???

Nothing. Why do you ask?

 

[The Midnight]

Nothing. Why do you ask?

Then why are pastors/ministers being made to do something that go against their beliefs?

 

[One Brow]

Then why are pastors/ministers being made to do something that go against their beliefs?

The same reason that county clerks or pharmacists are expected to. They are in a job serving the public. In this case, they own the business, but it is still a public business, not a religious endeavor.

 

[The Midnight]

The same reason that county clerks or pharmacists are expected to. They are in a job serving the public. In this case, they own the business, but it is still a public business, not a religious endeavor.

??? How is a church a business???