What's new
By:
Filters

Faster than I predicted

I'm not so sure the Hitching Post wedding chapel constitutes a religious institution.

Same thing with ordination by mail-order.
 
I'm so afraid for Christianity. How will it ever survive?
 
PearlWatson said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't find a better source?

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?
Click to expand...

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?

As for the case in question:
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmoveme..._in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

This is a for-profit business, open to the public. If they want to stay a for-profit business, open to the public, they are not allowed to discriminate. If they want to discriminate, change it to a not-for-profit church or private club. Easy as pie.

If by "Faster than I predicted", you mean that public businesses would be force to treat members of the public equally, I would have agreed. However, it is false that Christian pastors have been told they have to marry homosexuals in their own churches.
 
The source was crappy, but the news story is legit. Check the Washington times.

And wow did you find just as crappy a source, just the polar opposite to the other. Talk about the kettle.

Also the recent case in Houston where a judge tried to force pastors to submit their written sermons to charge them with hate speech crimes.

We are on the slippery slope. Right at the very top, but the pebbles are rolling.
 
Wasn't this a public wedding chapel where the pastors happen to be Christian?

If so I do not see this as an attack on religion, as I do the Houston case Log mentioned. But I do not agree based on it's their business and they shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to. But I'm in the distinct minority there.
 
Stoked said:
But I do not agree based on it's their business and they shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to. But I'm in the distinct minority there.
Click to expand...

That's the essence of a capitalist society. I'd say you are in the overwhelming majority, at least I'd hope so. I haven't read any of the links in here, but I'd imagine if the church gets public funding/doesn't pay taxes it may have to adhere to local legislature regarding marriage? But I'm with ya on private businesses being allowed to refuse service from whomever they choose.
 
HighlandHomie said:
That's the essence of a capitalist society. I'd say you are in the overwhelming majority, at least I'd hope so. I haven't read any of the links in here, but I'd imagine if the church gets public funding/doesn't pay taxes it may have to adhere to local legislature regarding marriage? But I'm with ya on private businesses being allowed to refuse service from whomever they choose.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason they choose? Even discriminatory and hateful reasons?
 
Stoked said:
For whatever reason they choose? Even discriminatory and hateful reasons?
Click to expand...

you seem comfortable empowering governments, judges, and cops to act against individuals based on their sentiments or beliefs, as such authoriteis may interpret them, without having any objective basis of having done some harm to others in matters of equal standing with respect to law. Pretty sure that's not really what you want, but that's sorta the ground you seem to be standing on. . . .
 
So OB and others whom I may presume to have some idea of a better world through government seems comfortable with the notion that cities are right to craft ordinances which specify punishments to licensed individuals, businesses or whatever who refuse to exercise a public duty of some kind or perform business at the request of specific special people who are more special than other classes of folks.

nice.

that's why I don't think we need to put up with arrogance in government.

what we really need is legislation prohibiting governments from licensing business. Let a government have that power, and it just gets arbitrary and corrupt.

Call it the Freedom to Do What You Want Amendment.
 
babe said:
you seem comfortable empowering governments, judges, and cops to act against individuals based on their sentiments or beliefs, as such authoriteis may interpret them, without having any objective basis of having done some harm to others in matters of equal standing with respect to law. Pretty sure that's not really what you want, but that's sorta the ground you seem to be standing on. . . .
Click to expand...

You seem to read to much into things, if you are even following the flow (in this case you are not) of the discussion, and go off on random tangents that no one is even talking about.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The source was crappy, but the news story is legit. Check the Washington times.

And wow did you find just as crappy a source, just the polar opposite to the other. Talk about the kettle.

Also the recent case in Houston where a judge tried to force pastors to submit their written sermons to charge them with hate speech crimes.

We are on the slippery slope. Right at the very top, but the pebbles are rolling.
Click to expand...

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.
 
One Brow said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this case there were not acting on behalf of a church but their own personal religious beliefs.
 
PearlWatson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hate it when I have to kind of be on your side. It's the lamest thing ever, and it makes me feel filthy... like the 10' pole I use on trout's mom. Luckily, I'm only kind of on your side.

There was no good, legal reason that gay marriage was illegal. And so it should be legalized. That being said, forcing any religion or institute to preform homosexual marriage against their will is just as wrong.
 
Stoked said:
You seem to read to much into things, if you are even following the flow (in this case you are not) of the discussion, and go off on random tangents that no one is even talking about.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top