RNS: Ministers who own a chapel sue Idaho city after declining to marry same-sex couple

[Kosher Ham]

Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps the gay folks brought on discrimination by insisting their relationships be given legal benefits? Its always convenient to blame the victims.

 

For real ?  

 

twa, if marriage were so holy the divorce rate would not be what it is.

[alexey]

The simplest, easiest solution has always been the civil union. If you want the legal benefits, you get a civil union agreement from the government, consisting of a power of attorney, pre-civil union agreement, and so forth.

Of course this doesn't happen for two reasons

1. The right wing doesn't like the idea of churches no longer able to conduct a legal ceremony

2. The extreme left doesn't like that they can't get married, forcing the rest of the nation to accept them.

So, that which makes the most sense and would be the most fair doesn't happen for political reasons.

So your solution to religious bigotry is to take away marriage from secular people?

Thanks but no thanks. My wife and I are married, not unionized.

[Larry]

Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps the gay folks brought on discrimination by insisting their relationships be given legal benefits? Its always convenient to blame the victims.

 

Or to try to claim to be the victim. 

 

Just an opinion, mind you.  no doubt others would have different ones. 

 

But to me, the birth of the Religious Right, as an organized, political, force occurred in the 80s. 

 

It was in Florida, with Anita Bryant.  And their defining issue, the reason why they came together, was to legislate discrimination against gays. 

 

Their meme was the notion that every single gay has a biological imperative to grab your children, and turn them gay.  Their slogan was "They can not reproduce, so they must recruit". 

 

Their solution, to protect society from the legions of gays who are lurking out there, to seduce your children, was to vote Republican, so we can pass laws making it a criminal offense for gays to adopt children.  Or provide foster care.  Or be employed in a school.  Or have a security clearance.  Or be a police officer or firefighter.  Or live near a school.  Or a park. 

 

Right now, in Florida, there is no law prohibiting convicted child molesters from adopting children.  Being a convicted felon is not a bar.  The only group who are barred, by law, from adopting, are gays. 

 

And now, I'm supposed to believe that a group of people, who came together 30 years ago, for the purpose of legislating discrimination against gays, a group which up till recently constituted a majority of the voting public, and still represents a near majority, . . .

 

are a persecuted group who are only defending themselves from the relentless attack of, what, 1% of the vote?, who started all of this fight by trying to impose their agenda on everybody else. 

 

----------

 

What really surprises me is, the sheer number of people who can repeat this idea, and who not only believe it, but expect me to fall for it, too. 

[alexey]

Why do you say "gay marriage" if the law says its just "marriage". Could it be argued that while it is discriminatory, it is not against gay people, but rather the discrimination is against the ceremony itself, therefore... I'm sure others have said that before. Kind of like Denny's must serve all races, but they cannot be forced to serve items not on the menu? In this case, could they publish a "menu" of sorts that says "Traditional Marriage ceremonies only"?

The legal system does not make that distinction... so the menu is either marriage or no marriage... having a "traditional only" menu is like having a "whites only" menu.

[Corcaigh]

 

consider marriage a holy bond instituted and blessed by God Elvis Impersonator

 

All major credit cards accepted.

[twa]

 

 

twa, if marriage were so holy the divorce rate would not be what it is.

 

 

What did Moses say about divorce?.....people are the problem

it is the individual that assigns worth, ya make of your life and freedoms what ya will

 

If that's what it is, and I don't believe it is, then there should be no legal recognition of that religious institution. 

 

I agree there should not be .....I would be fine with separating the two,I'm not fine with requiring a ordained minister to go against his beliefs though.

 

why do those that believe it is simply a legal status wish to formalize the event so though?

[No Excuses]

nice

 

but then if you don't consider marriage a holy bond instituted and blessed by God I can see where ya might consider it simply a service rendered or wrongfully denied.

 

Which God?

 

I'm pretty sure most of you would be butthurt as hell if Muslims tried to institute their definition of marriage upon you. Lets call it for what it is. In the US, this isn't a religion issue. It's a Christian issue and Christians want a small part of their definition of marriage enforced on everyone (while completely ignoring other marriage related sins like adultery). If another religion tried this, there would be TeaKlan ralllies all over the country.

[Predicto]

Actually, I'm the OP and I posted it with the intent it is about both parties: the ministers who want religious freedom and the gov't who plans to jail them for it.

 

 

Ummm... that's an interesting characterization of this dispute.  Not at all one-sided or histrionic.  

 

Yes, really. Personal liberty or something. As a private business owner I should be able to kick out anyone I want and not provide services to anyone I want. For any reason whatsoever.

 

 

Good luck with that.  That battle was lost long ago, with the passage of the Civil Rights acts.  

[twa]

Which God?

 

I'm pretty sure most of you would be butthurt as hell if Muslims tried to institute their definition of marriage upon you. Lets call it for what it is. In the US, this isn't a religion issue. It's a Christian issue and Christians want a small part of their definition of marriage enforced on everyone (while completely ignoring other marriage related sins like adultery). If another religion tried this, there would be TeaKlan ralllies all over the country.

 

I only have one (and I think the Muzzies share it)

 

it is certainly largely a Christian issue and ceremony co-opted by the secular   govt, most here were Christian.

 

ya want to bring back punishment for adultery?....I'm game,it has certainly never been ignored in any church I was a member of 

 

the SSM folk seem to be the imposers now......enjoy

[Predicto]

The simplest, easiest solution has always been the civil union. If you want the legal benefits, you get a civil union agreement from the government, consisting of a power of attorney, pre-civil union agreement, and so forth.

 

Of course this doesn't happen for two reasons

 

1. The right wing doesn't like the idea of churches no longer able to conduct a legal ceremony

2. The extreme left doesn't like that they can't get married, forcing the rest of the nation to accept them.

 

So, that which makes the most sense and would be the most fair doesn't happen for political reasons.

 

 

Umm...   Your reasons are kind of biased.   I think the right wing doesn't want gays to have any legal sanction for their disgusting anti-biblical "relationships" which said right wing would prefer to still be illegal like in the good old days.  "Churches no longer able to conduct a legal ceremony" would be about 8th on the list, at best.

 

And the not-extreme left simply doesn't like discrimination against anyone.      

 

 

the SSM folk seem to be the imposers now......enjoy

 

 

Keep saying it.   Eventually you might believe it.

[twa]

 

 

Keep saying it.   Eventually you might believe it.

 

When I attempt to force someone to perform a religious act contrary to their faith or go out of business it is not a imposition?

 

and it is clearly regarded as a religious act by many ministers

[Predicto]

When I attempt to force someone to perform a religious act contrary to their faith or go out of business it is not a imposition?

 

and it is clearly regarded as a religious act by many ministers

 

Anytime anyone is required to serve anyone they don't want to, it is an imposition in some sense.

 

That doesn't make gay people "the imposers."  From their point of view, they only want equality.

 

I say this as someone who has said that ministers should not have to perform such ceremonies if it violates their faith.   I just object to the "let's see if we can spin this into gays are the real oppressors blah blah blah" stuff.

[Larry]

I say this as someone who has said that ministers should not have to perform such ceremonies if it violates their faith.   I just object to the "let's see if we can spin this into gays are the real oppressors blah blah blah" stuff.

I would think that a perfectly acceptable way to solve the matter would be to tweak the law to try to make it more clear, whether it ought to apply in this case. (Although I can see problems with trying to get too specific, too.).

[Predicto]

I would think that a perfectly acceptable way to solve the matter would be to tweak the law to try to make it more clear, whether it ought to apply in this case. (Although I can see problems with trying to get too specific, too.).

 

I'm 99 percent sure that is what is going to happen.   Contrary to ZGuy28's fears, pretty much nobody actually wants to force ministers to perform gay marriages against their wishes or go to jail - not even the most militant gay activists.     

[Kilmer17]

Anyone else concerned about the possibility of the Govt determining what is and what is not a church?

[twa]

Anytime anyone is required to serve anyone they don't want to, it is an imposition in some sense.

 

That doesn't make gay people "the imposers."  From their point of view, they only want equality.

 

I say this as someone who has said that ministers should not have to perform such ceremonies if it violates their faith.   I just object to the "let's see if we can spin this into gays are the real oppressors blah blah blah" stuff.

 

the SSM folk are obviously not all gay....wrong,but not gay 

 

 

Anyone else concerned about the possibility of the Govt determining what is and what is not a church?

 

they already do, I'm more concerned with religious freedoms being left in churches care/domain.....which I suppose relates to your question.

they do not own it,the individual does

[Larry]

Anyone else concerned about the possibility of the Govt determining what is and what is not a church?

That's why I've said that I want said definition to be broad.

But the determination has to be made. The only alternative is to give churches no protections whatsoever.

[Predicto]

Anyone else concerned about the possibility of the Govt determining what is and what is not a church?

 

I don't see anyway around it.  Like I said before, if you don't draw distinctions, everyone will classify their businesses as churches so they don't have to pay taxes.   It worked for L Ron Hubbard.   

 

The courts serve as a backstop against arbitrary government action in other contexts.  They can do so here as well.

[sacase]

This is pretty simple but as usual we are making it far more difficult than is needed.

 

There is no need to make an ordained minister perform a religious ceremony for homosexuals when it is against the teaching of the religions. Trying to make them do so, is the same kind of intolerance that homosexuals are fighting against. There are several posters in this thread who revel in their religious intolerance. 

 

That being, I believe the proper "ruling" would be that the venue would have to allow any couple to get married but  if you are a homosexual couple you must bring your own officiant. Reasoning is that the venue does not have anyone on staff that is able to perform the ceremony. Both parties get what they want. Unless of course what one side wants to to force religion to accept them. 

 

Finally, I never understood why you would want have someone take your pictures, make your wedding cake or officiate your ceremony when they can't stand you. If someone said they felt that way against blacks, then I would happily avoid them and give my business to someone who wanted it. There are to many options out there and most likely society will shun businesses that it finds socially unacceptable. 

[Slateman]

So your solution to religious bigotry is to take away marriage from secular people?

Thanks but no thanks. My wife and I are married, not unionized.

You have a social contract that is granted by the state. Due to religious reasons it is called "marriage." Short for  "holy matrimony." Again, a religious institution.

 

The state should not be recognizing religious ceremonies as legal ceremonies, particularly by those organizations that discriminate based on religion, sexual identity, race, or gender.

[Larry]

There are several posters in this thread who revel in their religious intolerance. 

 

At least, there are, if you think that making businesses follow laws is "religious intolerance".

[Slateman]

Finally, I never understood why you would want have someone take your pictures, make your wedding cake or officiate your ceremony when they can't stand you. If someone said they felt that way against blacks, then I would happily avoid them and give my business to someone who wanted it. There are to many options out there and most likely society will shun businesses that it finds socially unacceptable. 

It's difficult for us to understand because we're normal. If people don't like us, we go some where else. But to some, they feel it's their obligation to push the issue. They go to these places, knowing they're going to be turned down, to give them the opportunity to sue. It's an opportunity to push their agenda.

Now, obviously, the majority of gay couples are not like this. The recognize that there is a certain portion of society that hates them. They simply avoid them and move on. But there is that tiny minority that wants to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They want everyone to be forced to accept them. So they specifically target places like this chapel.

 

You find this with just about every social cause. Abortion, sexism, racism, transgendered, gun rights, etc. They all have their extremists who simply want to ram their agenda down the throats of the rest of the world.

[twa]

At least, there are, if you think that making businesses follow laws is "religious intolerance".

 

 

I've never seen a business ordained or perform a ceremony....must be Episcopalians 

[Larry]

I've never seen a business ordained or perform a ceremony....must be Episcopalians

You mean, The Hitching Post is taking people's money, and not doing anything in return?

No wonder they're going out of business.

[Larry]

It's difficult for us to understand because we're normal. If people don't like us, we go some where else. But to some, they feel it's their obligation to push the issue. They go to these places, knowing they're going to be turned down, to give them the opportunity to sue. It's an opportunity to push their agenda.

Pointing out that this particular case began when the Hitching Post was contacted by a lobbying organization which exists for the purpose of suing people, who talked them into being a sock puppet for this intentionally instigated lawsuit.

(Just like the Hobby Lobby case did).

But feel free to keep pushing this notion that the real vilians here aren't the people with the "no gays allowed" sign on the front door of their business, it's the uppity gays who arent content to just stay in their second class state.