It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

page: 12
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

You know what? I have a great idea. Actually a very Conservative idea that Republicans should love.

How about we take away the tax exempt status of Churches, as it was emplaced to begin with because back in the day Churches were the only real form of social services - which is no longer the case... So let's take away that tax exemption and make them compete for their money just like businesses do.

Then we'll see how many turn couples away, gay or not.


I agree.




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Actually we're both wrong if you wish to play pointless semantics ...

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not religion itself.

/shrug



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Actually we're both wrong if you wish to play pointless semantics ...

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not religion itself.

/shrug


But you are against the free exercise of religion.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Actually we're both wrong if you wish to play pointless semantics ...

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not religion itself.

/shrug


But you are against the free exercise of religion.


I know I am! You do know some of the crazy # religions would do if they were actually, truly given free reign to do as they please, don't you?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   


The city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2013. It applies to housing, employment and “public accommodation.” Religious entities are exempt from the ordinance. But in May city attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review that The Hitching Post, which is a for-profit business, likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.


To put things in perspective here. Religious Entities are Exempt from the Ordinance. The Hitching Post may or may not qualify for that exemption.

Second, this whole thing is being started Not because some gay couple insisted that they marry them but because these ministers are afraid of that happening. So far when anyone has called to ask if they do same sex marriage, they tell them no, give them a list of alternatives and nothing more happens.

Something tells me this is being organized and pushed by The Herritage Foundation Legal Team in their fight for Religious Dominionism. I mean Religious Freedom. It's difficult to know which is which now a days..



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Actually we're both wrong if you wish to play pointless semantics ...

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not religion itself.

/shrug


But you are against the free exercise of religion.


Really? I am?

How so?
edit on 23Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:41:07 -050014p1120141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SomePeople

I know I am! You do know some of the crazy # religions would do if they were actually, truly given free reign to do as they please, don't you?


As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else, I could care less what any religion believes.

Same-sex unions should be legal.

But if a religion does not wish to participate, then they should have that freedom.

As long as the religion does not deny gays to marry, then they should have the freedom to believe whatever they wish.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Heff, I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I have never in my life time met a gay Christian and I know A LOT of gay people. Most Christian ministers will not perform a marriage for people outside of their faith, myself included.

If I was approached by a gay couple who were Christian and wanted to be married, most likely, I would do so but the reality is, that would never happen.

Although I am Christian by nature, I am smart enough to balance the teachings of the Bible with rational thought and I am firmly against discrimination.

Others must also understand though, religion isnt the same as applying for a minimum wage job, state standards don't always apply. A Christian minister doesn't usually perform Hindu marriages, same thing kind of applies here
edit on 19-10-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Actually we're both wrong if you wish to play pointless semantics ...

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not religion itself.

/shrug


But you are against the free exercise of religion.


Really? I am?

How so?


You want to force people to participate in something that they feel is against their religion.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The government has a compelling interest to restrict certain kinds of conduct, regardless if that conduct is veiled in "religion". Christian Scientists, for example, can be compelled, by court order, if they fail to provide medical care to minor children.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia, wrote in a ruling, that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals to break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a religious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.

Religion doesn't always get to be freely practiced. And that's a good thing!



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You just made it so simple and I vote you for president of common sense.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Nope, I want people who operate a business that serves the public to serve the public without discrimination.

I don't want them to have to marry someone of their same gender.

I don't want to purge their beliefs from them.

I don't want them to have to witness a same-sex marriage in their church.

I just want them to treat all members of the public equally in their business which serves the public.

They have a business. There are other types of ministers, justices-of-the-peace, as well as actual Christian ministers who do not have a problem with same-sex marriages, etc. that can carry out the function of their business equitably. They could easily hire someone to perform these weddings that they do not prefer to perform, and the business would make money, and legal requirements would be met.

edit on 23Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:54:40 -050014p1120141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Perhaps the problem isn't so much with religion, but with the laws in the first place.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Beez, don't listen to the nay sayers here. Many of the same people in this thread that are parading tolerance have exactly no tolerance for those of certain religious factions. In other words, hipocrites of the tallest order.

If one wishes to achieve equality and respect, one must also give it in return.

Not every Christian is a Bible thumping maniac who condemns gay people.
edit on 19-10-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Churches serve the public.
Churches serve everyone, not just those that attend service.

Why should churches then be exempt from this "law"?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Churches serve the public.
Churches serve everyone, not just those that attend service.

Why should churches then be exempt from this "law"?


Because churches are not and have never been considered places of public accommodation; they are recognized as centers of that free exercise of religion thing.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't say there weren't any, I said I have never met or know one lol. I'm almost 40 and have been in the restaurant industry my entire life so you can see how the links you listed seem slightly lackluster for me personally. I think it's great and I have always said the Bible's purpose was not for everyone who reads it to take every passage literally and make that their life's mission (We have the quran for that) but instead to make those who read it better people through compassion and understanding.

Many Christians don't read the bible the right way and twist it into some form of sick radicalism which I can't stand and detest on a daily basis but not every Christian does that, far from it and those people are the ones who recognize the generalizations and stereotypes from the communities we are not against but seem in many situations to be against us, by default.

edit on 20-10-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Either the government gets # for supporting homosexuality or it gets # for not supporting homosexuality. can we make up our minds please.


Well, that's what they get for their little nanny-statism behavior.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Churches serve the public.
Churches serve everyone, not just those that attend service.

Why should churches then be exempt from this "law"?


Because churches are not and have never been considered places of public accommodation; they are recognized as centers of that free exercise of religion thing.


Curious how this business, as recognized as such, falls into the public accommodation statutes of either Federal law (specifically USC 42, Section 12181, rule 7) or Idaho statute (Title 18; chapter 73)...
edit on 20-10-2014 by ownbestenemy because: Added chapter to Idaho law




top topics



 
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join