Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well they are ministers. Do they make a profit? Not sure about that but they do say their religious beliefs are being trampled. Religion is involved in this so that is the difference.
Maybe this time gays won't be able to run someone out of business. We will see.
Depends on the Christian, some are for, some are against. Some churches will do gay marriages and some will not. The question is why do gay people want to force those who disagree with them to do a service for them?
I do not think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.
I am trying to understand why some think it should not be legal. Better yet, why is there even any laws against it in the first place? Isn't that what all this frenzy has been about lately, the issue of making gay marriage legal?
Well they are ministers. Do they make a profit? Not sure about that but they do say their religious beliefs are being trampled. Religion is involved in this so that is the difference.
Maybe this time gays won't be able to run someone out of business. We will see.
They DO make a profit.
Quote:
This is how some conservative media outlets are reporting the case: Idaho city tells pastors to perform gay marriages or go to jail The chapel is owned by two pastors who believe marriage is the union of one man, one woman based on their reading of the Bible, which is why they don’t want to perform same-sex weddings.
They recently filed sued [sic] when a town in Idaho said the chapel was not exempt from anti-discrimination laws and would face sanctions if they turned gay couples away.
If this was a church, it would be a no-brainer. Religious freedom must include the idea that churches and other houses of worship should be able to determine who they will marry, and who they won’t, no matter who disagrees with their rationale.
But this is not a church; this concerns an Idaho business that performs weddings.
In this case, both sides have a fairly compelling claim. Ministers who are anti-gay marriage should not be forced to participate in such unions. But civil rights laws are pretty clear that such discrimination is not allowed when it comes to public accommodations.
And, of course, the right wingers who are stirring this up didn't let out a single peep about what happened in North Carolina where the legislature passed a law ORDERING CHURCHES NOT TO PERFORM SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
Quote:
North Carolina’s 2012 constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples states, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
Another section of state law prohibits clergy from performing any ceremony of marriage without a marriage license having been obtained (reprinted below), and lawyers for the plaintiffs say those laws prohibit clergy from performing religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, even where allowed by their church and religious beliefs. As such, they argue, those restrictions violate their religious liberty.
“The core protection of the First Amendment is that government may not regulate religious beliefs or take sides in religious controversies,” said Jonathan Martel, a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP and counsel in the case. “Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith
essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.”
So, Janelle, being the fair minded person that you are I'm sure you actually OPPOSE states making laws interfering with the religious practices of a denomination of over one million people (United Church of Christ)? Government interfering with religious practice is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Because I certainly do whether it is requiring or preventing a religious ceremony to take place. And in the case cited above, the U.S. Supreme Court thought so too, because it refused to review the case after the State of North Carolina lost in a lower Federal Court.
So you have NO CASES that you can show where a LAW is passed REQUIRING any church to perform a homosexual marriage, but I do have one showing where one of our more illustrious states has tried to interfere in the other direction by preventing gay marriage.
This is an absolutely brilliant reframing of the main objection to gay marriage, that those opposing gay marriage under the guise of religious freedom, are they themselves imposing their beliefs on others' religious freedom.
And that's just me, pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious right.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-21-2014 at 01:24 AM..
I only accept that argument if a person goes into the business fully knowing the laws and limitations ahead of time. Here we have a case of people who have run this business for decades and now the government suddenly changes the laws and demands that they follow them. Is that right?
I would both agree and disagree with you here. And with so little agreement between us on ANY topic we should highlight such over laps where they occur.
I am also against laws that compel churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I am also against laws compelling private businesses like bakeries to sell to gay customers, black customers, or any customers they do not want to. It is THEIR private business. They should have full purview to sell to who they want, and go out of business and become destitute as a result.
Just like it would be my right to laugh and rejoice at a bigot putting himself out of business by implementing his bigotry in his business.
However the argument "They were in business for decades and the law changed on them" is a non-argument to me. When you say "Is that right?" I would say "Yes, it is". Laws change all the time, especially laws related to businesses. Being in business under one law for decades is not an argument to be except from changes in any law.
So while I disagree with THIS law, the argument that it is unfair that a business that has existed for decades should suddenly have to follow SOME new law, is a non starter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm not the one claiming that gay marriage ban is EXACTLY the same thing as the civil rights era. You keep bringing it up because it's a cheap tactic forcing someone who opposes gay marriage into an indefensible position.
Thats a bit of a misrepresentation from you. Commonly what people do is not draw parallels between the civil rights movement and the equal sexuality movement. What they are ACTUALLY drawing parallels between is the ARGUMENTS that were/are used in both cases.
And example of this are legion. There are many arguments that were used then that are now being used in this context too, almost word for word.
One need only go back and read the "Letters to the Editor" in the news papers at the time of the "Loving" trials for inter racial marriage to realize the language and arguments being used against her at the time are almost word for word what we hear on THIS topic.
And that has to, at the VERY least, give you some pause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
There is nothing being taught here beyond the typical liberal position that demands everyone believe like them or else we are bigots.
Another misrepresentation from you. The "liberals" are not saying that belief different to theirs is Bigotry. What people DO define as bigotry is being against someone or something for no actual reasons. To campaign verbelly or otherwise against something without being able to present a single shred of an argument, evidence, data or reasoning to justify that position IS what brings the label of "bigotry" and rightly so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Acknowledging that a lifestyle is sin according to the Bible is not condemning or judging people.
Actually it is. But it is an attempt to do it vicariously. So that you can condemn while attempting to wash your hands OF that condemnation. It is a fetid little tactic that is alas used by too many people, in too many contexts. But all I can see what I see people engage in it, is people who have a bias or bigotry against something, but do not have the courage of their convictions to actually stand for their position. So they let some other person, or text, do it vicariously for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
IF you have an issue with that then you have an issue with the Bible.
How can one have issue with a book? I do not think people have an issue with the Bible so much as an issue with the people who think the events in it actually occoured, or that the text of the Bible is a relevant work when considering how people in a modern society should or should not live their lives.
Because there are thus far no arguments, much less from you, establishing EITHER of these things.
These two business owners, are they giving out marriage licences? If you get married at their place, do you still have to go to the county clerk and get your licence?
I do not think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.
I am trying to understand why some think it should not be legal. Better yet, why is there even any laws against it in the first place? Isn't that what all this frenzy has been about lately, the issue of making gay marriage legal?
Also where does the idea of marriage come from?
And this is where this all goes. No church, temple, etc...should have to perform gay marriages. Many won't even perform marriages among straight people who are not members/confirmed in their religion. That's all fine and dandy, but so many people are not satisfied with that, they also don't want certain people to be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony (which is equally recognized in the USA), or even recognized by other religions. In the USA marriage is a contract (for lack of a better word) and the actual act of becoming married can be in a religious ceremony or not.
These two business owners, are they giving out marriage licences? If you get married at their place, do you still have to go to the county clerk and get your licence?
Marriage license is a civil case. Exactly what I'm talking about (see post above).
Here is an article that gives more info about this place:
For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage | ThinkProgress Indeed, the Hitching Post is a for-profit business, but with help from ADF, the Knapps have been gearing up for this challenge for some time by redefining their business in more religious terms. In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month, which was authorized by Michael S. Oswald, an ADF attorney. Along with the new business was a new Operating Agreement, dated October 6, 2014, which enshrines all of the religious values offered in the complaint as part of the business. They similarly added a new Employee Policy and Customer Agreement stipulating that the Hitching Post will only perform unions “between one biological male and one biological female.” Jeremy Hooper notes that back in May when it was first in the news, the Hitching Post Chapel’s website said that the Knapps offered a “traditional or civil ceremony” for weddings and that they also would “perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths.” Though the website still said as much as recently as October 9, 2014, the old language has been scrubbed and the Hitching Post now only offers “a traditional Christian wedding ceremony.”
Yes, that is why I wanted to know if these 2 pastors are giving out marriage licences. I am not sure who is legally allowed to give those out? Is this chapel just like a church where you still have to go to a courthouse after and get your legal marriage licence?
Here is an article that gives more info about this place:
For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage | ThinkProgress Indeed, the Hitching Post is a for-profit business, but with help from ADF, the Knapps have been gearing up for this challenge for some time by redefining their business in more religious terms. In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month, which was authorized by Michael S. Oswald, an ADF attorney. Along with the new business was a new Operating Agreement, dated October 6, 2014, which enshrines all of the religious values offered in the complaint as part of the business. They similarly added a new Employee Policy and Customer Agreement stipulating that the Hitching Post will only perform unions “between one biological male and one biological female.” Jeremy Hooper notes that back in May when it was first in the news, the Hitching Post Chapel’s website said that the Knapps offered a “traditional or civil ceremony” for weddings and that they also would “perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths.” Though the website still said as much as recently as October 9, 2014, the old language has been scrubbed and the Hitching Post now only offers “a traditional Christian wedding ceremony.”
I think we need a lawyer. LOL. I only know my state, Texas. We have to go to the County Clerk to get the actual license. After that it's up to us to find the person who conducts the ceremony. If, in another state, these people can give the actual license, I would think they would have to go with state guidelines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
