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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Tangerine

Oh, why not. I mean, it's like any other piece of important Western literature ... we quote Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, Twain, Marx ... why not the Bible?

Because as Hefficide and others pointed out above, the Bible actually says a lot about loving others and NOT judging them.

Every statement in the Bible that condemns same sex love stems from the Judaic Purity Codes.

If one isn't living under those Codes (and I don't think many of us are) we're not subject to those restrictions.

Besides, Jesus healed the lover or at least the "favored servant" of a Roman Centurion ... I think if He had any problem with it, He'd probably have mentioned it.

/shrug

Why not? Because it grants the Bible authority in this matter. No one argues that Milton, Homer, Shakespeare, etc. have authority in this matter.

What the Bible does or does not say regarding this matter is entirely irrelevant.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tangerine

Oh, so if I want to buy bacon from a Halal or a kosher establishment and they don't have it, they have no religious grounds to stand on?

Do they advertise that they sell bacon and refuse to sell it to you? No. Your example is ludicrous.

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: beezzer
Would you get married in a Satanist church just to prove a point?
This is pretty stupid. Plenty of judges and ministers (like me) are willing to marry same sex couples.
If you can't find a minister within your own religion willing to marry you, maybe it's time to reconsider your religion.
This isn't a slam on gays who are christian or catholic or anything else, it's about having the support of those you support, regardless. They say f-u, then f them. simple. Doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs, just your "peers."

This was a public wedding chapel not a church. It's no different from a Christian optometrist refusing to examine the eyes of a Muslim.

originally posted by: beezzer
In Oregon there is an issue on the ballot next month.

It's for the legalization of pot.

If it is made legal, I still won't participate. But like this issue, many here would want me to participate (because it is legal) regardless of my thoughts in the matter.

Using your illogic, you shouldn't even vote on the issue.

This couple should form a private club that only accepts heterosexual couples that are engaged to be married. Marriage in the chapel would require membership in the club... problem solved.

If pool hauls can do it to get around anti-smoking laws, then I don't see why these people can't do it as well.

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.

Excellent idea.

originally posted by: SomePeople
a reply to: Gryphon66

But it hasn't anything to do with equality anymore - it's just an element of the community that just pushes and pushes and won't stop. I have no idea why anyone would want a person to perform and wedding ceremony that doesn't want to!

it's just so utterly ridiculous that it's not wonder some people don't bloody like us.

Kind of like black people wanting to eat at a lunch counter where they're not wanted????

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"?

I'm a member of the public. Churches don't serve me.

originally posted by: Tangerine
This was a public wedding chapel not a church. It's no different from a Christian optometrist refusing to examine the eyes of a Muslim.

Correction, this is a private business that offers such services that can be easily obtained elsewhere; i.e., City Hall which is right across the street. I am unsure why the defendants in this case (the same-sex couple) are wanting to damage fellow citizen's for their beliefs.

Also, this is quite different as "public accommodation" as defined by the Federal Government and more so in a vague manner by Idaho State Government, specifically charge places that provide care to adhere to non-discrimination laws. A place that offers such services as this, to a specific clientele does not fall under the statute as I read them. A caveat to this is Idaho's statute; which is extremely vague and places all businesses under their jurisdiction, along with a legal limbo.

In the end, the solution is quite simple here. This couple (whom wants this business to marry them) should have just gotten their marriage ordained via the County Clerk (that was right across the street) and then, seek a building out and open their own business offering competitive services against the Hitching Post. Nah, that wouldn't have made the point though.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Kind of like black people wanting to eat at a lunch counter where they're not wanted????

Apples to asteroids. Not even in the same ballpark.

They started with forcing bakeries to make cakes against their will, this is even worse. Now of to your re_education camp.

a reply to: Tangerine

Not to the people who believe in the Bible.

Actually, every one of those authors has a very specific relationship to this issue: all of them wrote fiction about real life.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in the "truth" of the Bible, or that the facts contained therein are ... questionable.

There are people who do believe, and those people are our co-members here and our fellow citizens in society.

If I have to use their book, and their beliefs to at least try to get through to them, I will.

a reply to: mugger

What a particularly joyous reference in regard to a subject which directly impacts upon equality for gays and lesbians, as we actually WERE sent off to camps once upon a time, by people who believed that we were just not quite good enough.

No one wants to re-educate you, as that is probably impossible.

No one wants to take your religion.

a reply to: Bone75

How so?

It's the denial of public services to people because of some arbitrary characteristic.

Of course it's the same thing.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

So, separate but equal is okay ... you don't mind if "their kind" get married, just not in the same place that you could if you chose to, Christian or not, divorced or not, as long as you've got $90 and license, "step right up, step right ..."

Got it.

*barf*

a reply to: Helious

I provided the links just in case you wanted to actually communicate with some actual gay Christians.

It's pure insanity to me, but, everyone has the right to their own insanity.

Cheers.

I dont get this. If the religion you want to BLESS your marriage in doesnt support gay marriage, then why do you even consider yourself part of that religion? You clearly dont fall in line with its reasoning. You are then NOT a member of that faith. Its not a right. The good news is that you can just go to a near infinite number of other religions or denominations within that faith for that BLESSING. If not MAKE YOUR OWN.

To use the legal system to force people who think a certain way into your way of thinking is as bad as using religion in a legal system to do the same. Separation of church and state goes both ways.

Anyone arguing this as a good thing is about as undemocratic as a theocracy telling you what to do. Self perceived justifications aside, you are full of crap.

This is a disgrace. It also makes gay culture into a tool rather than just a life style. If I was a gay man I would be pissed that my beliefs are being used like this on my behalf. This is like telling the Catholic church to accommodate the church of Satan members in the name of fairness. The two ideologies dont mix, move along.

Retarded....

This case doesn't revolve around a church or a synagogue or a mosque or a temple.

It centers around some silly touristy wedding chapel a BUSINESS which advertises itself as open to the public.

No one is trying to make BIll and Doris or whatever their names were believers that gays are okay or that marriage equality is the Christian thing to do ... the only thing anyone is asking for is that the Hitchin' Post business do what it advertised.

The only ideology at stake here is the rule of law. Idaho has laws against discrimination against sexual orientation and has laws that allow for marriage equality.

No one's asking for belief changes, they're just asking this business to do it's job.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

So go to a business that does offer gay marriage.

what you are saying is like going to a Chinese restaurant and asking for a dominoes pizza. Then demand it because they advertise that they sell food...and thats the food you want.

This is about setting a precedent and you know it. There is no reason to demand an arbitrary thing like a blessing from a wedding chapel when you are already recognized legally as a couple.

Its just a matter of finding someone to perform the ceremony. If they dont, move onto another. You dont have the right to dictate what services are offered by whom.

You can say mass trying to argue it, that still doesnt change a thing. Its not a right to have private businesses provide the services you want. You have the right to open a business and offer those services if you like though. Its not like a city hall refused to wed a gay couple or recognize that union. Its a private business.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Tangerine

Kind of like black people wanting to eat at a lunch counter where they're not wanted????

Apples to asteroids. Not even in the same ballpark.

Actually, it is in the same ballpark. Imagine an Identity Christian couple who own a lunch counter and refuse to serve blacks because their religion teaches that they are subhuman (an actual teaching of the Identity Christian faith). What then?