Faster than I predicted

[Gameface]

They are ordained pastors of their church, so of course they are acting on behalf of their church. This is the reason why the state recognized their authority to perform weddings in the first place.

They should hire in a judge for weddings they don't want to participate in.

I still think that if they want to run the type of establishment that picks and chooses their clientele there are ways to do that. If they want doors open to the public then they're gonna have to figure something out.

But of course, this was the sum of all fears going in, so no one is looking to make this easy. It's all 'bout scoring them points.

 

[PearlWatson]

It is rather hard for me to change my race, but if gay people decide to be bisexual, then do they receive different equal protections under the law? Or what happens if a gay person decides to be heterosexual — what gay rights do they lose and how are they unequally protected under the law?

When was the last time you, personally, chose to be sexually attracted to men, and could you, personally, choose to be sexually attracted to women?

That unattributed quote and the question following it are out of the blue and not really germane, but how far back did you go to dig that up?

 

[One Brow]

I'm mad because these laws only pertain to homosexuals.

It also applies to heterosexuals. That you never think about it, because no one discriminates against heterosexuals, is privilege.

 

[One Brow]

Probably.

But someday, I still dream, people will put some determination to make the Bill of Rights say what it said to begin with. "Congress. . . (the Fed Gov lawmakers) shall make no law" respecting any imposition of religion or any other kind of human belief some people might like, on the people, from the Federal level at least.

You mean, someday people will repeal a good-sized section of the 14th Amendment?

 

[One Brow]

Anyone who ever thinks that nobody ever changes their minds over a post on a message board or FB should take heed. I've long been of the same mind as Stroked (I should have known better), but in one post, Nate did what OneBlow has failed to do for the last who-knows how many ridiculous posts. Well said, Nathan, and thanks for the clarity.

I'm for whatever works, and glad someone found what works for you.

 

[One Brow]

Doesn't that make them the same category as hobby lobby?

You should think very carefully about whether you really want to live in a world where the Hobby Lobby ruling is applied broadly.

In this case, the owners are a for profit attempting to discriminate against one group of the public. In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners were being required to pay, not accept business, and their refusal applied to every one, not just certain employees. Those are significant differences.

 

[One Brow]

Your ignorance at the meaning of chapel is secondary to my point.

I'm well-versed enough in the meaning to know that chapels are often specifically not tied to any particular religion, the way a church is.

When I predicted government would force "churches" to perform homosexual "marriages" against their will I wasn't talking about brick and mortar buildings I was talking about clergy...you know the ones with the authority to perform weddings.

This couple doesn't have to perform any weddings at all. They can perform weddings for only close friends, on only members of a private club, or only members of an actual church, and never have to worry about running afoul of the law. However, they are claiming to serve the general public, while discriminating against members of the general public.

You worded that really oddly but I'll run with. You said the chapel is for hire, so in other words you are renting time in a building to have your wedding ceremony.

Clergy perform wedding ceremonies at many different venues, some of which are paid venues. This is all in jeopardy now.

Only in the sense that the paid venues will need to agree to hold gay weddings. No one can force any clergy to officiate at any wedding in any venue, paid or otherwise.

I don't think Christians who fell for all the "equality" hogwash really considered the consequences when they caved in to peer pressure.

I saw many who considered your paranoid overreaches and dismissed them.

 

[One Brow]

That unattributed quote and the question following it are out of the blue and not really germane, but how far back did you go to dig that up?

It's a quote directly from the article you linked. Thank you for verifying you don't even read the stuff you link to.

 

[Stoked]

It's a quote directly from the article you linked. Thank you for verifying you don't even read the stuff you link to.

Hahaha, nicely done.

One Brow - 1
PW - 0

 

[LogGrad98]

It's sort of ironic that we talk about the separation of church and state and yet we really can't begin the discussion without understanding how the "state" defines a "church".

And not everything that calls itself a "church" is really a church in the eyes of the law.

It's a conundrum I guess.

It is defined in financial terms. It has little to do with actual "religious" activities.

 

[TroutBum]

I know you're used to blowing your top early, but follow that road a few more blocks.

Yes, it's a for profit business and not a religious non-profit organization protected under the first amendment. Doesn't that make them the same category as hobby lobby?

Um, apples and oranges, night and day, good and evil, Trout and BeanClown. I am about to dub thee Hottykkk part deux.

Why is this place still in business? Why would anyone pay for the privilege of getting "hitched" here? This is like suing to protect you're right to dumpster dive. You may be able to make a legal argument but it's still nasty.

Dumpster diving has been proven to be awesome, and also, very illegal.

I don't think Christians who fell for all the "equality" hogwash really considered the consequences when they caved in to peer pressure.

On the contrary, most did, and those with half a brain realize that this has nothing to do with the safety of religion.

I saw many who considered your paranoid overreaches and dismissed them.

I think it would be more fun to do document the rare few that agree with her.

It's a quote directly from the article you linked. Thank you for verifying you don't even read the stuff you link to.

It's alright Eric, she hasn't read or responded to a post of mine in years. When faced against a superior opponent, the smart soldier lays low because they know they can't win. And by "smart" I really mean "ignorant tool".

 

[b_line]

All I know is, as soon as they start forcing pastors to marry gay guys and get gay sexy with them, I'm moving to Canada.

 

[b_line]

Every time I see the title of this thread, I think "that's what she said!!!"

 

[Hantlers]

Which special classes would those be? You can't refuse to perform a straight marriage, either.

I believe the Catholic Church has/does...especially in the case of divorced couples.

I know the pastor of a local reformed church refused to marry one of my friends after going through pre-marital counseling with them. It was a good thing too, she was nuts.

 

[moevillini]

Your ignorance at the meaning of chapel is secondary to my point.

When I predicted government would force "churches" to perform homosexual "marriages" against their will I wasn't talking about brick and mortar buildings I was talking about clergy...you know the ones with the authority to perform weddings.

You worded that really oddly but I'll run with. You said the chapel is for hire, so in other words you are renting time in a building to have your wedding ceremony.

Clergy perform wedding ceremonies at many different venues, some of which are paid venues. This is all in jeopardy now.

I don't think Christians who fell for all the "equality" hogwash really considered the consequences when they caved in to peer pressure.

They are ordained pastors of their church, so of course they are acting on behalf of their church. This is the reason why the state recognized their authority to perform weddings in the first place.

a chapel is not necessarily associated with a religion - there is no restriction on the use of the term "chapel"

and just because something may call itself a religion or someone may call themselves a "reverend" or "pastor" does not mean that are associated with an IRS recognized religion. A for-profit business, by it's definition, is NOT a religion. If those two "pastors" don't want to preside over homosexual weddings, they don't have to. But the Hitching Post, as a for-profit business, and NOT a religious institution, cannot discriminate in that fashion.

Plenty of people can preside over weddings who are not affiliated in any way, shape or form with religion.

My neighbor got herself "ordained" so she could legally preside over her son's wedding. I'm not sure exactly what was involved but it was recognized by the state, yet had nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Another neighbor is a judge (in juvenile court, but that doesn't matter) and has presided over a number of weddings. In some cases, the County Clerk can legally officiate a wedding.


I wish I understood why some of those reading these posts keep ignoring the facts.

 

[fishonjazz]

well that de-escalated quickly..

 

[moevillini]

When a couple is getting married, they usually want the ceremony to reflect who they are and to share the moment with very special people in their lives. More than ever, couples are choosing to have close friends and family officiate their weddings, especially if they are not religious. In Illinois, it is legal for virtually anyone to become ordained to marry someone. It is easy to get ordained almost instantly simply by going online and applying with an online ordination service.


Read more : https://www.ehow.com/how_7611563_become-ordained-marry-someone-illinois.html

Pretty sure it's similar in most other states.


Here you are - go for it, Pearl! You can probably even change your screen name to Reverend Pearl. Not quite as catchy as "Reverend Blue Jeans" but it's close

https://www.ministerregistration.org/

 

[moevillini]

?

 

[fishonjazz]

?

Laugh till I cry, I think

 

[moevillini]

Laugh till I cry, I think

LOL. It didn't show up as a Smiley, it showed up as [ emoji23 ] or something like that.

Now it's showing up as a smiley, that looks about like what you called it. Cute!