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.
Hey man, if they would've just stayed a church instead of turning into a greedy for-profit BUSINESS, they'd be in the clear. Now they're whining about it? Boohoo.
I've read the story a couple times now, and nowhere does it state that this is anything other than a for-profit business. It *never was* a church. These are religious people who also own a business.
Well from a Christian standpoint, which I won't belabor since this probably isn't the best forum to discuss the intricacies of scripture, a Christian is not supposed to associate with people who are actively involved in various manifestations of rebellion. This does not mean that they can't interact with them in passive manners such as your employer/employee scenario, but it conveys the idea that no legitimacy shall be given to the behavior. Legitimacy is being forced to be given if a pastor must perform a homosexual marriage. It isn't the idea of sin, because all are sinners.
Whether this chapel is a business or a church is irrelevant. The chapel is being forced to provide a service that it does not offer. The city is requiring the equivalent of a pancake house to also sell hubcaps. There is also the above religious component, which treads dangerously into first amendment territory. One would think that the city wouldn't want to risk a lawsuit based on the free exercise clause. Finally there is the violation of conscience angle. Would you be OK if a homosexual t-shirt maker was forced to make a t-shirt that said "Homosexuality is a sin and gays are going to hell"?
How so?
The chapel offers weddings, does it not?
A wedding is a wedding is a wedding.
A pancake is NOT a hubcap. Absolutely no parallel whatsoever.
How is it constitutional to force a person to act in violation of their religion if no one is hurt? That equates to the state prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Business are required to follow certain laws. By incorporating a business you are legally separating yourself (individual) from the business (entity) for specific protections. If you can not follow the laws set forth for operating a business, then don't start a business.
If you read the article, it is a civil matter. The city has an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they are in violation of that. Just because they are minister's does not matter, the issue is they are not a church.
BTW nice straw-man, liberals don't want to strip churches of their non-profit status, liberals want businesses to treat all persons equally. If a church doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, that is their right. If a business does not want to provide a service for same-sex couples, that is not their right - that is discrimination. See the difference?
what liberals want is for everyone to think they way they are TOLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
These people are people of religious faith, who offer a service for people who fit a certain RELIGIOUS criteria.
what YOU and your liberal Brownshirt friends have decided is, people are not allowed to have religious beliefs that YOU dont like. period.
This is the First Amendment being trampled and your good with it, because doing so forces people to do what you demand.
You people are the most intollerant people America has ever seen.
No, it was a church but it had it's church status removed by The State in order to allow this to happen.
It was always a business, never a church. In the owner's own words:
64. Then in 1988, John Green offered to sell the Hitching Post to the Knapps because
Green had fallen into some financial troubles.
65. The prospect of owning a small business both excited and scared the Knapps. So
they prayed long and hard about the offer. And God answered their prayers.
67. So the Knapps bought the Hitching Post business and name from Green in 1989
and began leasing the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel that same year.
Well from a Christian standpoint, which I won't belabor since this probably isn't the best forum to discuss the intricacies of scripture, a Christian is not supposed to associate with people who are actively involved in various manifestations of rebellion. This does not mean that they can't interact with them in passive manners such as your employer/employee scenario, but it conveys the idea that no legitimacy shall be given to the behavior. Legitimacy is being forced to be given if a pastor must perform a homosexual marriage. It isn't the idea of sin, because all are sinners.
Whether this chapel is a business or a church is irrelevant. The chapel is being forced to provide a service that it does not offer. The city is requiring the equivalent of a pancake house to also sell hubcaps. There is also the above religious component, which treads dangerously into first amendment territory. One would think that the city wouldn't want to risk a lawsuit based on the free exercise clause. Finally there is the violation of conscience angle. Would you be OK if a homosexual t-shirt maker was forced to make a t-shirt that said "Homosexuality is a sin and gays are going to hell"?
It's still an issue of the line this is crossing from Church to business. A church is completely exempt from taxes. It pays none. A business is not. A church (generally) is not designed to turn a profit (technically). A business is. However, when we look at the church in question, it is designed to make a profit, yet is still miraculously tax exempt. This is unfair. If it's going to turn a profit, it should be paying taxes. If it's paying taxes, it isn't really a church anymore (according to the Establishment clause), and thus, it's rules about same sex marriage lose a great deal of value.
I fully support (though entirely disagree) with a church not marrying homosexuals. That's their right, no matter how foolish I think it is. I do not think a business should be able to deny service to anyone on the basis of any existing belief. It's unfair. A business that refuses to serve Jews for religious reasons would almost certainly face punishment of some kind. They would be expected to serve Jews anyway. Why would it be different just because this claims to be a church, even though it is clearly operating as a business?
And no, a shirt company should not be forced to print anything it doesn't want to. There's a huge difference between denying service to people and not advocating for their cause.
And not - Owners of wedding chapel threatened with fines and jail time for refusing to comply with town anti-discrimination ordinance.
The story *you* quoted does not mention at all the loss of anyone's tax-exempt status. Because, of course, the wedding chapel is not tax-exempt.
Right. I never said it did. I said a comment under the article spoke of tax exempt status in the following way: if churches were to lose their tax exempt status, what would that mean for them as far as gay marriage was concerned?
The chapel is being forced to provide a service that it does not offer. The city is requiring the equivalent of a pancake house to also sell hubcaps.
Umm no. The chapel is in the business of offering wedding ceremonies to anyone who walks in the door with the cash. Except, apparently cash in the hand of a gay person.
An aside, for those who don't know - Idaho, like Nevada, has looser requirements for a marriage license than most states. So, like Nevada, it is an eloper's destination, and couer d'alene is just over the washington border.
what liberals want is for everyone to think they way they are TOLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
These people are people of religious faith, who offer a service for people who fit a certain RELIGIOUS criteria.
what YOU and your liberal Brownshirt friends have decided is, people are not allowed to have religious beliefs that YOU dont like. period.
This is the First Amendment being trampled and your good with it, because doing so forces people to do what you demand.
You people are the most intollerant people America has ever seen.
And you have not idea what you are talking about other than you know how to repeat the nonsense that was taught to you. The topic is not about a church and people practicing their religion, the topic is a couple that own a business but do not want to abide by the laws governing business. Glad to catch you up
All court orders have that same threat, if you are found to be not following a court order the judge has the power to sentence you to contempt of court and this couple seems bent on pushing that judge to exactly that, their choice if they end up in jail, I have ZERO sympathy for them.
No they don't. Now we're really done here. Good lord. Do you want to know the criminal penalty for refusing to pay a lawsuit? Absolutely nothing.
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.
Good lord. Do you want to know the criminal penalty for refusing to pay a lawsuit? Absolutely nothing.