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.
It’s amusing that some Christians seem to believe “marriage” is a Christian concept. It’s not. It predates Christianity and all religions. Christians can believe they have a lock on the definition, meaning, intent, interpretation of what marriage is meant to be, but that’s not remotely true. They have the right to enforce what they believe about marriage for ceremonies in their churches, but not when it comes to anything that happens outside those walls.
I saw no one saying that Christians had a "lock" on marriage. For many Christians, practicing their faith doesn't end when they exit the church. Become familiar with our Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
As a devout Christian, do you always say Yes to those you love ? Of course not.
As a devout Christian, you must know Jesus spoke favorably in the New Testament of the Genesis verses concerning God creating man and woman and a man cleaving to his wife.
I'm not a religious person, but I know marriage has a [theoretically] special role in Christian teachings and many Christians use those passages to validate refusal to provide services to same sex marriages.
Good post. It isn't so much a refusal to provide the services, but to be a part of something their consider sinful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey73
You are right. But they never wanted to use that venue. The lesbian couple targeted the business to bring attention to themselves, posing as victims and possible a monetary reward.
Considering the post I quote later, where it states their "mission", this is the most likely and the usual reason that gay couples do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Can a person have Christianity before Christ?
Okay, so why allow it now? What changed really?
Did gay marriage exist prior to very recent history? Okay, so why allow it now? What changed really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Not for every couple.
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Two singles usually pay more than one married couple.
No one is talking about tax. It really has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. The business did not tell the couple they could not marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And they have every right to refuse a transaction that compromises their moral beliefs. Just because you apparently don't have any moral problem with same sex marriage doesn't mean everyone else should accept it too.
You would think that would be an easy concept, yet they are not getting that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan
When a business is offering itself up as a place of public accommodation, no, religion should not be entering into the transaction, and the business should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or sexual orientation.
Google "Liberty Ridge Farm" for an example of a business being stupid enough to try to skirt NY's public accommodation laws.
"Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public - including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).
Sexual orientation is not a protected class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne
Hmm, I don't find it stupid at all. I find it an extremely rational way to deal with their dilemma of a law that violates their religious belief. That's not to say I agree with their beliefs, but I respect the way they are being open and honest about what they believe.
From their website:
"At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council,”
So, it looks the venue was totally open about their "mission", and who thinks at this point, with that coming from the website, that this couple knew exactly what they were doing, how it would turn out, and what they would do after?
"The First Amendment contains two clauses that prescribe the government's relationship with religion. In the first instance, the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In the strictest reading, the Establishment Clause proscribes any adoption of an official religion by the federal government. More broadly, the phrase functions as a way of assuring that the federal government will not adopt any stance in favor of or against any religion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip
If they're just denying gay marriages, and not also denying remarriage after divorce, disobedient fiancees, couples who plan to live with his parents, or fiances who are harsh with their fiancees, then their stance is based in bigotry against gays rather than a biblical rules.
Different religious faiths, even in Christianity, have varying beliefs on marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
They don’t until those convictions are used to hide behind in the public realm to discriminate. No one thinks Churches should have to allow gay marriages in their sanctuaries. But to claim Christianity as why you won’t bake a cake or rent out a venue is wrong because you’re not a Church, you’re a business licensed by the State. If you offer cakes for sale in a public bakery or offer to rent your space to the public. you’re agreeing to serve ALL the public.
Nope! Forcing a Christian to participate in an event that per their religious beliefs is sinful violates that person's religious rights under the Constitution.
"The First Amendment contains two clauses that prescribe the government's relationship with religion. In the first instance, the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In the strictest reading, the Establishment Clause proscribes any adoption of an official religion by the federal government. More broadly, the phrase functions as a way of assuring that the federal government will not adopt any stance in favor of or against any religion."
"Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000
While it may be clear to YOU, the Bible is not all that clear and not all denominations believe it says the same thing about it. What about getting divorced? Should they discriminate against second marriages too?
Christian faiths differ on their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey73
It may be interesting to you, but it is their right under the constitution and as business owners.
Yes, it is.
***Anyone that compares the discrimination against blacks in our country with the discrimination against gays in our country doesn't have a clue! I suspect most are ignorant of what it was like for blacks. I did not realize what it was like, even in the last century, until I was living in NC as I grew up in a county where the Underground Railroad had an end, and 30% of the people were black. We all used the same facilities and grew up thinking nothing of it. I am not Christian, and I am white, but I believe the venue should have the right not to participate in an event that is sinful, and that if they do, they are just as guilty of the sin as the couple is, and this is what many Christians also believe.
It became obvious to me that when someone quoted the mission statement from the website that the couple did this, not because they wanted to marry there, but to get attention for themselves, sympathy and to push an agenda down the throats of that Christian business. Oh, and probably some cash, as most have scored serious money from their pity parties! Forcing acceptance? Only in the dreams of the ignorant does that happen.
They don’t until those convictions are used to hide behind in the public realm to discriminate. No one thinks Churches should have to allow gay marriages in their sanctuaries. But to claim Christianity as why you won’t bake a cake or rent out a venue is wrong because you’re not a Church, you’re a business licensed by the State. If you offer cakes for sale in a public bakery or offer to rent your space to the public. you’re agreeing to serve ALL the public.
Receiving a business license means you're agreeing to serve protected classes of people, not ALL the public.
The problem there is, of course, that same sex couples can - and do - procreate.
Not necessarily. Many people who are not religious do marry.
Actually, the US tax system favors marriage. There are other benefits to marriage, including issues surrounding property rights and inheritance. There have, in the past, been instances, for example, when same sex partners were denied hospital visitation because the partner was deemed "not immediate family."
Source? There is nothing to suggest that in the article in the OP.
Source? I don't need a source. It is what they do. The Denver cake baker. Remember him? There have been stories for years about homosexual people who go out of their way to find businesses like cake bakers, wedding venues, etc., and deliberately ask for services knowing they may get turned down. Then it becomes a cause and then it becomes a news story. Bad Christians against people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. It isn't hard to figure out, even for a progressive.
Hmm, I don't find it stupid at all. I find it an extremely rational way to deal with their dilemma of a law that violates their religious belief. That's not to say I agree with their beliefs, but I respect the way they are being open and honest about what they believe.
From their website:
"At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council,”
The Liberty Ridge Farm added the section about their beliefs and financial support of Family Research Council after losing the lawsuit. I agree it's a fair and legal way to let ssm couples know they they can use the venue, but they'll be helping a business that opposes ssm in principle and financially.
OK, let's play that game where what gays have gone through is a match for what black Americans have went through, I will start, and those that feel that gays have suffered as black Americans have, present your evidence where thousands, probably millions of incidents played out when it comes to discrimination!
I had the pleasure to talk with a black man in NC about 20 years ago. He was probably 20 years older than myself, and we discussed the discrimination that he had seen in his life growing up, and the discrimination that he was still experiencing decades later.
Imagine that one's relatives had been sold and often treated like livestock.
Hmm, I don't find it stupid at all. I find it an extremely rational way to deal with their dilemma of a law that violates their religious belief. That's not to say I agree with their beliefs, but I respect the way they are being open and honest about what they believe.
From their website:
"At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council,”
But they are offering the facility up as a venue of public accommodation, which means they CANNOT discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
why do Dems have such a problem with people who have Christian convictions?
Because too many Christians make the assumption that they have the right to decide for those of us who are non-Christians what our beliefs should be, and they feel they have the right to call our beliefs false.
In medieval England, it wasn't a government institution, it was under canon law. Its only in the late 1600's marriage bans were required, but it wasn't until 1753 that the government got fully involved both in England and at least Virginia - the 1696 Va. law "act for the prevention of clandestine marriages" reinforced that marriage was a church duty, not the government's (not sure about other colonies). Virginia did not even outlaw incest until Dec. 8, 1788 (LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 1788−−13th OF COMMONWEALTH; CHAP. XXXII. An act concerning incestuous marriages http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol12-29.htm page 688).
Since then, the government has added so many benefits to being married, that disallowing it denies committed couples the rights to housing, wrongful death actions, taxes, inheritance and so forth.
In colonial America, women were defined by their marriage status as either feme covert or feme sole. In marriage, her status was submerged to that of her husband, she was essentially property; to remain feme sole as George Washington's mother was, the court had to approve it and that ended upon her marriage where again, her status was submerged.
Marriage as we know it in the 20th and 21st century is new. Gay marriage is simply an evolution. To disenfranchise gays is to disenfranchise them of legal and economic rights and benefits which is how the institution has evolved. The religious test for marriage ended long ago.
Conservatives should embrace gay marriage. Married people have a longer life and better health; a spouse can provide support so the person doesn't go on welfare for it and it provides more economic freedom through the tax breaks married couples get.
These ladies did not ask for the notoriety. A wedding planner took the episode and ran with it so to speak. They have said, they are not pursing litigation.
Last edited by webster; 12-28-2020 at 07:44 PM..
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.
