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

[Predicto]

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. 

 

 

 

I think you may have hit upon a reasonable compromise that might actually work.

 

 

However, as far as I can tell, there is only one poster in the entire tailgate who is even close to being "religiously intolerant," and he has toned it down a lot.   

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.

 

That damn Rosa Parks.  What a pushy dame.  

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

 

 

Why not?  Businesses apparently have the ability to have religious beliefs about contraception.  I think they can do anything they set their mind to. 

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.

 

 

 

More detail please.   I suspected that this was the case, but I didn't want to assume.

[Gamebreaker]

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 always find it humorous when people who aren't Christians say that Christians ignore adultery as a sin. What is your basis for this broad generalization? It certainly isn't ignored within my Church community. It actually receives more attention, due to the fact that it is more prevalent, than homosexuality. But no, continue on with your unverified assumptions. 

[Larry]

More detail please.   I suspected that this was the case, but I didn't want to assume.

I read the OP. (I do that, sometimes.)

 

On Friday (Oct. 17), an Arizona-based religious liberty group, Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the ordinance to the Knapps’ situation would be unconstitutional and would violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

 

However, on re-reading, I note that it merely says they're being represented by the lawsuit group.  Not specifically who initiated contact.  It's possible that I misread. 

I always find it humorous when people who aren't Christians say that Christians ignore adultery as a sin. What is your basis for this broad generalization?

Number of Constitutional Amendments passed, banning gays from receiving marriages, civil unions, or any other legal recognition similar to marriage: ______

Number of Constitutional Amendments passed, denying equal legal treatment for adulterers: _______

[Gamebreaker]

 

Number of Constitutional Amendments passed, banning gays from receiving marriages, civil unions, or any other legal recognition similar to marriage: ______

Number of Constitutional Amendments passed, denying equal legal treatment for adulterers: _______

 

 

I fail to see how this somehow proves all Christians completely ignore adultery. Which is what No Excuses was claiming. It doesn't. 

[Predicto]

I fail to see how this somehow proves all Christians completely ignore adultery. Which is what No Excuses was claiming. It doesn't. 

 

 

Mild hyperbole in the Tailgate?   Well I never....

[Slateman]

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.

And who is it you think pushed this law through in the first place?

 

But hey, it's the same town that doesn't want kids reading dirty books. Like the Bible, the Illiad, or anything else "weird."

[alexey]

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.

That claim appears to be factually incorrect. Where did you get it?

[No Excuses]

I fail to see how this somehow proves all Christians completely ignore adultery. Which is what No Excuses was claiming. It doesn't. 

 

Make it a national debate, take away the marriage rights of adulterers, divorcees and people engaging in pre-marital sex. Then you can say that the conservative Church is consistent with its application of marriage/sex related sins. I frankly don't care what your Churches preach behind closed doors. At the national stage, their focus is targeted very specifically on one group. They look like a bunch of hypocrites when they endorse asshats like Newt Gingrich and then speak out about the "sanctity of marriage".

[twa]

I've known many that would not marry adulterers,divorcees and fornicators.....is that taking away a right they never had?

 

they wouldn't endorse Newt either.

 

 

next ya will be demanding they marry them as well?

[Slateman]

That claim appears to be factually incorrect. Where did you get it?

Uh ... it's most definitely correct. The church has been conducting marriages for over a thousand years. Kings didn't do it. Lords didn't do it. Just sea captains and priests. Marriage is often referred to as matrimony. It traces it's lineage back to Old Latin.

 

But only in the last 100 years or so has it taken on a legal meaning with legal benefits and ramifications. Marriage in the US, as it currently stands, is a legal recognition of certain relationships and is regulated by the individual states. More over, dating back to 1888, it has been ruled on by the courts and in 1923, it was established that to marry is a central part of liberty, protected by the Due Process Clause.

 

In other words, it ceased being the sole propriety of religion and has become the propriety of the state.

[Larry]

And who is it you think pushed this law through in the first place?

 

So, your point is that this is all caused by the gays. And not just the gays (who constitute, what, 1% of the vote?), but a tiny fraction of the gays.

And you support this by looking at this event, then going back in time to see what happened before that. (And then stopping. Mustn't look at what happened before that).

And asserting that a tiny fraction of 1% of the voters came up with the notion that discrimination is bad?

[alexey]

Old Latin roots, eh? Alright let's return the word "marriage" to it's rightful owners, glorious ancient gods of Rome.

[Larry]

Uh ... it's most definitely correct. The church has been conducting marriages for over a thousand years. Kings didn't do it. Lords didn't do it. Just sea captains and priests. Marriage is often referred to as matrimony. It traces it's lineage back to Old Latin.

I rather agree with you. Marriage was something that was done by churches, exclusively, for a very long time. I point out that when the King of England, arguably the most powerful man in the world, wanted to get married, he did not have the power to grant a marriage. He had to create a new church, so the church could marry him.

The notion that the government could PERFORM a marriage is a new invention. At least in comparison.

I will observe that I think the government RECOGNIZED marriage (and regulated them?) for a long time before that, though.

[alexey]

Churches played an important role in all major life events for a vast majority of people for a very long time.

So what?

Also, what happens if there are some words that refer to religious procedures or paraphernalia, and eventually a bunch of secular people ended up using them? Same thing that happens to all words all the time. Meanings change, usages change. It's all good. Nobody owns a word.

[twa]

 Nobody owns a word.

 

they do own ordination though,which is much more than a word.....just as marriage is meant to be

[Stadium-Armory]

they do own ordination though,which is much more than a word.....just as marriage is meant to be

Ordination: A statistical technique in which data from a large number of sites or populations are represented as points in a two- or three-dimensional coordinate frame.

heh

[alexey]

just as marriage is meant to be

That's called a "deepity"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

The term refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true.

[twa]

That's called a "deepity"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

 

you are certainly free to believe so

[Zguy28]

That claim appears to be factually incorrect. Where did you get it?

Perhaps he got it from God himself?

 

Matthew 19:3-9 ESV

³ And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

 

This is why the church holds fast to the truth that marriage is a holy ordinance and for male joined to female only. To change it, redefine it or break it up, or whatever is to be unholy and make a mockery of God himself who ordained it.

 

The bible paints a picture of God's people as holding fast to truth and righteousness in one hand, but love in the other. Too often though, conservatives lose the love while defending truth and liberals lose the truth & righteousness while putting too much emphasis on love (they actually misunderstand love altogether, equating it to feelings, but that's another discussion).

[alexey]

Perhaps he got it from God himself?

 

Matthew 19:3-9 ESV

³ And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵

...

 

This is why the church holds fast to the truth that marriage is a holy ordinance and for male joined to female only. To change it, redefine it or break it up, or whatever is to be unholy and make a mockery of God himself who ordained it.

...

I will write this from a believer's perspective for you.

 

As we discovered more about God's creation, we realized that the story in Genesis is a metaphor.  We also learned that many of God's creatures are created by God as homosexuals, and that homosexual behavior is quite common in the animal kingdom.  With that knowledge about God's creation available to us, we can now make an intelligent, informed choice about how we should apply Jesus' message of love and acceptance to people who were created as homosexual by an Act of God.  Let them live, let them join each other as they wish, voluntary, with love and devotion, and let them live happy, fulfilling lives together in marriage as God intended.

[Zguy28]

I will write this from a believer's perspective for you.

 

As we discovered more about God's creation, we realized that the story in Genesis is a metaphor.  We also learned that many of God's creatures are created by God as homosexuals, and that homosexual behavior is quite common in the animal kingdom.  With that knowledge about God's creation available to us, we can now make an intelligent, informed choice about how we should apply Jesus' message of love and acceptance to people who were created as homosexual by an Act of God.  Let them live, let them join each other as they wish, voluntary, with love and devotion, and let them live happy, fulfilling lives together in marriage as God intended.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread with biblical exegesis and such on the prohibition on homosexual behavior. However, I will leave this tangent with something to read and think about. This piece by the late John Stott (Anglican theologian) pretty much spot on. Please take the time to read it if you so choose: http://www.bibleteacher.org/hmarriage.html

[Kosher Ham]

Crazy part about this is...God made them that way.

 

Seems like the belief system might need some fine tuning.

[alexey]

I don't want to sidetrack this thread with biblical exegesis and such on the prohibition on homosexual behavior. However, I will leave this tangent with something to read and think about. This piece by the late John Stott (Anglican theologian) pretty much spot on. Please take the time to read it if you so choose: http://www.bibleteacher.org/hmarriage.html

Thanks for sharing. Tons of stuff to dispute there. Maybe someday we can talk about it.

[Zguy28]

Crazy part about this is...God made them that way.

 

Seems like the belief system might need some fine tuning.

Not according to said belief system and the doctrine of original sin. But I know from our past dealings that you personally dispute the notion of sin itself, so let's not swerve.

[Larry]

This is why the church holds fast to the truth that marriage is a holy ordinance and for male joined to female only. To change it, redefine it or break it up, or whatever is to be unholy and make a mockery of God himself who ordained it.

Observing that you just quoted a Biblical passage which forbids divorced people from remarrying. Something which I believe no church has enforced for quite some time. And certainly something which receives nowhere remotely close to the political hatred and legislated discrimination directed at gays.

Hardly a shining example to use to illustrate a claim that the church holds fast to the word of God.

----------

Although I will observe that the topic of the thread isn't a bad example, either.

Seems like I've been hearing for 20 years that discriminating against gays is The Word of God, handed down on stone tablets. Immutable, absolute, and incapable of even being debated. God said it, and that's it, end of discussion.

Until discriminating against gays becomes unpopular to 51% of the public. And holding that position weakens one's power.

And lo, we have Republican politicians suddenly making token gestures at token homosexuals. And we start seeing churches deciding that well, God didn't actually say that.

It's amazing how the immutable word of God changes, when changing it becomes to the organization's political advantage.