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: 15
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

How do you figure that this wedding chapel isn't a place of public accommodation and why should services easily available elsewhere be allowed to set precedence for places that isn't the case. A wedding chapel sounds a lot nicer to get married in than city hall, if some members of the public have that option, shouldn't all members of the public?


Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]



Sexual orientation and gender identity

States covering sexual orientation and/or gender identity in public accommodations crime statutes:

1976: No LGBT public accommodations statute at the state level
1977: District of Columbia: Sexual orientation[4]
1989: Massachusetts: Sexual orientation[4]
1991: Connecticut: Sexual orientation[4]
1992: New Jersey: Sexual orientation[4]
Vermont: Sexual orientation[4]
1993: Minnesota: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
1995: Rhode Island: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
1998: New Hampshire: Sexual orientation[4]
2002: New York: Sexual orientation[4]
2004: New Mexico: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
2005: California: Sexual orientation[4]
Maine: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
2006: District of Columbia: Gender identity[4]
Hawaii: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
Illinois: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
New Jersey: Gender identity[4]
Washington: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
2007: Iowa: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
Oregon: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
Vermont: Gender identity[4]
2008: Colorado: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]
2009: Delaware: Sexual orientation[4]
Nevada: Sexual orientation[4]
Maryland: Sexual orientation[4]
Wisconsin: Sexual orientation[4]
2011: California: Gender identity[4]
Connecticut: Gender identity[4]
Nevada: Gender identity[4]
2013: Delaware: Gender identity[4]
Puerto Rico: Sexual orientation and gender identity[4]


Wikipedia

You even cited the law yourself in your first reply, why are you correcting, correct information?


(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;


42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions
edit on 10/20/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt


ORDAINED ministers... Ordained by religious training or in a legal certification to wed people like a judge?

I really didnt even want to post again. I feel like a prick for hogging the thread, but I just had to point that out. Sorry. I will be quiet now.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Ordained ministers are not a religious institution, they are not operating a church or out of a church. They are a business selling a service to the public.

Why be quiet or sorry for expressing yourself? You have things to say, say them... there's no limit to how many posts you can make in a thread.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Sodomy is an action one chooses to participate in, being black isn't. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Quite literally, and fully on topic....

Jesus wept...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ordination is the process by which individuals are consecrated, that is, set apart as clergy to perform various religious rites and ceremonies. The process and ceremonies of ordination varies by religion and denomination. One who is in preparation for, or who is undergoing the process of ordination is sometimes called an ordinand. The liturgy used at an ordination is sometimes referred to as an ordinal.


en.wikipedia.org...


Defrocking, unfrocking, or laicization of ministers or priests is the removal of their rights to exercise the functions of the ordained ministry. It may be grounded on criminal convictions, disciplinary problems, or disagreements over doctrine or dogma, but may also be done at their request for personal reasons, such as running for civil office, taking over a family business, declining health or old age, desire to marry against the rules for ministers in a particular church, or an unresolved dispute. The form of the procedure varies according to the Christian denomination concerned. The term "defrocking" implies forced laicization for misconduct, while "laicization" is a neutral term, applicable also when a priest has requested to be released from vows.


en.wikipedia.org...

These ORDAINED minsters could lose their right to marry people. Thats a big thing man.

These are religious minsters of different faiths.

There is a difference between someone with legally recognized authority by the state to marry someone, based on the authority given to and extended from a particular faith and someone who has the legal authority to do so like judge who has it directly extended by the state itself.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

They can't lose their ordained status. The State cannot 'defrock' ministers or priests only a Church (council, elders whatever) can do that. What they can lose is their business for refusing to comply with the law. There's not one thing stopping either of the Knapps from performing weddings at a church but their business is not a church.

Furthermore the State is not compelling them to perform same-sex weddings, they are compelling the Knapps to follow the law as it applies to owning a business that is open to the public. The Knapps can choose to not operate their business anymore since the law has been updated in a way that conflicts with their religious beliefs.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

A church can remove the rights to marry people from one of its ministers. Of coarse they can. This is in essence making the state the only legally recognized authority to marry people.

It removes the legally recognized authority guaranteed by the constitution to perform religious functions according to your faith.

If it was a group of judges, a city or state that refused the legal status of a gay couple as a valid union you would be right.

These are religiously trained and religiously ordained ministers. MEANING that the authority to marry people goes through the faith that ordained them and then through the state that recognizes that religion and the right for that religion to marry people legally. What this is doing is setting a precedent to circumvent the legal status of religious functions based on something that religious institutions should be legally protected from.

In essence the only valid ceremony is a state ceremony. Its is discrimination over every religion that requires authority to have legally accepted ceremonies according to its own criteria.

EDIT TO ADD:
If your faith calls for you to wear a spaghetti monster hat while getting married, and once you wear that the state will recognize your union based on the authority that is extended to your religious institution, then you are protected by the constitution to be recognized as a legal union if your faith says you are....Or not if you refuse to.

Furthermore,
If his customers look for religiously recognized unions, and he cant provide that because he doesnt comply with those religions he gets his authority from, then the state is in essence running him out of business by denying his ability to perform religious ceremonies according to the criteria set out by any particular faith.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

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?


The Bible says no such thing.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman

Whats next? Tell Catholics that if they dont allow female priests that they will go to jail for discriminating against women?


Please don't give them any ideas.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Think of it this way. The federal government sees marijuana as illegal. It is outright illegal in the eyes of the federal government to smoke pot. YET, Rastas are legally protected by constitutional law, based on their religions criteria and the freedom to perform religious functions according to their religions requirements, to smoke pot since they see it as a fundamental aspect of their faith.

You cant throw a Rasta in jail for smoking pot. Yet it is illegal. WHY? Because the constitutional right to follow religious observances trumps any state or even federal laws that conflict with that. It was seen as natural law even before the country existed from the moment Plymouth rock was founded.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Have you looked at their website? Not that it matters but they certainly are not offering religious ceremonies. I wonder how many Jewish people they have married, or just non-Christians in general, all without repercussion from any religious authority that they may or may not answer to. Without looking into it, I would assume that it has to be that way in order to operate as a for profit business.

If performing marriages is truly a faith-bound thing for them to do, why are they not operating out of a Church? And in fact they are taking money away from local churches that rely on fees for weddings, christenings etc... to maintain their buildings and provide salaries for the ministers, organists yadda yadda. Obviously money means more to them than the faith in which they are trying to hide their bigotry behind.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No, I agree with you. I wouldnt get married in one of these places. This still sets a dangerous precedent. Also, this is creating the exact sort of issue that opponents of gay marriage foamed at the mouth about. Its so counter productive its almost retarded.

I wouldnt touch this with a ten foot pole politically. Those that go down this path will end their careers once the plethora of legal cases against it start up. I am just a freaking waiter and even I can come up with a hundred reasons for why the supreme court will rule this as unconstitutional. No matter the arguments and justifications or sentimental nudges, this is illegal and will be seen as such eventually. Its political suicide.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

It's not as though I don't actually agree with you on that - also on this being something I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot bargepole if I were in politics - but it's not a church, but a business. They sell weddings.

This acceptance within our society of professional discrimination is disgusting and no matter how we try and twist things to remind ourselves that it's their right to discriminate - they're not doing this in their living rooms, they're doing this in their business and that falls under certain laws.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SomePeople

I see what you are saying. I do. Short of amending the constitution I dont see how this can be legally solved though. The law is pretty clear. BUT starting that process is dangerous in its own right. Once it is passed its law and the process has no guarantee that the goal sought after that set about starting the amendment process will be the end result. You could end up with an amendment that is completely against what you wanted and then its law for good or until you start the process all over again with still no guarantees that you will improve the situation any more as you see it. That has happened before. I think its best to just work with what we got.

have a good one.

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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Sodomy is an action one chooses to participate in, being black isn't. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.


Sodomy now, is it? Are you claiming someone is having sex at this Hitchin' Post?

Sodomy is a act, not a condition. For that matter, Christian faith is a choice, perhaps you should give that up?

Same logic.

Ah ... "the Bible says"

The Bible also says you can't eat shrimp, wear two kinds of cloth, or plant two kinds of crops together.

I believe we're also supposed to kill children who are disrespectful???

Pfft.
edit on 7Mon, 20 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -050014p0720141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Let's all stop bickering and just get married for half a day.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Christian faith is a choice


Perfect

:-)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



When it is done on churches, when government starts dictating to religions, I wonder if you all will still support government then.

No because then the government would be violating Freedom of Religion.


Many of you appear fine with this simply because of their tax status.

If people want to hide behind religion to get out of paying taxes and forcing their faiths on people then they should have to follow the guidelines when it comes to their religion.


If churches had their tax status changed, would you still cheer government imposition?

A majority of the churches in America should have their tax status changed. These churches get their tax breaks because they are supposed to use the money that is donated to them for charity but how many of these really do that? If you look at these televangelist the mansions they live in the luxury cars and yachts they own the money clearly isn't going to support any kind of charity.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


I look forward to seeing everyone condemn the acts of government in this and support the ministers, regardless of their faith.


I support the ministers right to believe what they believe, and the right to practice their beliefs in private

I can't support public discrimination

Beezzer - I wonder if you could answer a question for me, honestly and directly? Let's see...

If they had refused to marry an interracial couple - would you still support them and condemn the government?
edit on 10/20/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join