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: 17
53
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
If you want to be legally bound or what have you, fine, if you want the same rights as married couples, ie. shared income and the lot, fine by me.

But don't force a religion to call it marriage.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Are churches open to the public?



Not all them.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than 100 operating temples around the world. Visitors are welcome to visit the temple grounds at all of these temples and attend open houses prior to dedication. However, only baptized members who are qualified and prepared are allowed to enter a temple after it is dedicated.


Catholics deny sacraments to non-Catholics and openly gay Catholics. No church, that I know of will perform wedding for those outside of their faith, some won't perform wedding for those outside of their congregations. Some churches won't perform weddings for divorcees, or people whose lifestyles they generally disagree with.

Churches' rights are not at stake here.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.



Everyone has the right to not be refused public accommodation simply on the basis of their race, gender, religion and (in certain states) sexual orientation.

A church is NOT public accommodation. A Catholic church is not going to accept a Jew as a member of its church, unless the Jew is willing to go through the process of becoming a Catholic. Not to pick on the Catholics, but they will also excommunicate those who break their basic tenets. All perfectly legal, because a church is not a public accommodation.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

So churches are open to the public.

And yet, respect is shown for those with religious differences.

Except not really. If they make money, then they can't have religious freedom.

Is that about right?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So is the "church" protected, or is the "religion" protected?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

No. Churches and the services that they offer are not necessarily offered to the general public.

Churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone. A public, for profit business, that offers weddings to the general public do not have that right if that rejection is based on an illegal bias.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

So is the "church" protected, or is the "religion" protected?


Both to a certain extent. Just like "people" are protected to a certain extent. You can't kill people just because you believe it's okay. You can't kill people inside a church. You can't kill people just because your religion says it's okay.

But what does any of this have to do with the right to public accommodations?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

But what does any of this have to do with the right to public accommodations?


Apparently, "public accomodation" trumps Constitutional rights.

At least, that's what I'm begining to understand here.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

So ... let me make sure I'm getting this, you're saying now that when a minister marries two folks, he (or she) is responsible for verifying, certifying and approving the method of "marriage consummation"?

That's a new one ... does the minister have to be in the, er, 'bridal chamber' in person, or will photos suffice? How about a live video feed, would that do? Does he hold up score cards like at the Olympics?

Sodomite-schmodomite ... using archaic terminology doesn't mean squat. I could just as easily (and actually more accurately) refer to Christians as psychotics who believe that invisible beings that only they can hear are real.

Yeah, and I love how you supposedly live your life by the Bible and inflict parts of it in your hateful judgments of others, and yet, try to skirt by the portions you don't favor or which expose the brutality of your God and His religion, but then you want to enforce them full bore when it suits you and imply that others are twisting or just don't understand.

And as far as casting the first stone, I prefer the "judge not so that you are not judged" version ... but I'm sure that doesn't mean what it says, either.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well actually, public accomodation comes to us from the English Common Law, so in a way, it does "trump" the Constitution, at least in a historical sense ...

But, there's nothing that is required in the public accomodation laws that contravenes any part of the Constitution.

Again, free exercise of religion doesn't give carte blanche to "do as thou wilt."

Maybe you should consider Thelema, Beezzer. "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

That way, you can have your cake, eat it, put some of it up for later, and use the icing for facial creme ... since it all boils down to a childish "we are special, we are unique" claim on the part of your Brothers and Sisters.

/shrug



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

But what does any of this have to do with the right to public accommodations?


Apparently, "public accomodation" trumps Constitutional rights.

At least, that's what I'm begining to understand here.


I believe rights to public accommodation comes under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Do you really want to go back to the days of seeing signs in businesses that say "We serve whites only"?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

At least a fine thanks for agreeing that it is Unconstitutional.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

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

I love the sensationalist headline!!

Just cuz the facts matter, let me clarify a few things...

(A) By "Government", you mean the Deputy City Attorney of small town Coeur d’Alene City, Idaho making a comment during a radio interview and being unsure enough about his "opinion" to couch it in "I think" and "in theory". No one has been fined or charged or even received a letter.
(B) By "Ordained Ministers" you mean the couple that runs the for profit "Hitching Post" there, "Hitching" folks for $90 dollars a pop in the rural version of the Elvis Chapel in Vegas.
(C) by "Go to Jail", you mean a "misdemeanor citation' according to the same less than educated "I think" quote by Deputy City Attorney of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
www.washingtonpost.com... sex-weddings/

And no, this yokel doesn't know what he is talking about. Even though it is a for profit "Hitching Post"..the actual ministry of the ceremony is entirely protected under state and federal law from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs, even at the local city "Misdemeanor" level. Now...since they are running a business, there strict legal response to gay couples inquiring about getting "Hitched" at the "Hitching post" should be...you are welcome to pay for the room and use of the hall for the allotted 30 minutes for $90 dollars, but we are unable to perform the actually marriage ceremony due to personal religious beliefs.




edit on 20-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Yeah, that's not what I said and you know it.

When was honesty thrown out as a Christian virtue, because that post you just made is downright deceitful. Shame.

Let me ask you a question which you'll dodge or sidestep or ignore, but just for kicks:

Tell me how the government, any government, is supposed to give special treatment to Christians including allowing them to break the law without violating the Establishment Clause?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Tell me how the government, any government, is supposed to give special treatment to Christians including allowing them to break the law without violating the Establishment Clause?



It's called religious freedom.

(I'll translate for you)

It means that religious folks, of any religion, can act like complete jerk-faces if that's what their religion calls for.

What.

Did you think freedom was only supposed to be nice and polite and flowery and scented like a doiley in grandma's house?

Freedom, real freedom is often ugly, brutal, crappy and rude.

Freedom that is sanitized for your protection isn't freedom.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

Wow.Some, if not most gay people hate the christian faith as evidenced in the comment section at before it's news( the incredible intolerance for conservative christian opinions.) Glad you see the point. The govt needs to stay out of religion permanently. I for one don't care if your gay. As long as you don't shove that point of view down my throat, It's none of my damn business what you do. PERIOD Gov't take notes.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Oh, I'm well aware that many Christians, at least in my personal experience, are horrible, judgmental, hypocritical jerks who are only interested in trying to tell others how to live and when they don't get to do that, they whine and cry about being victimized.

But that has very little to do with Freedom and a lot to do with character flaws.

But, as I assumed, you've just side-stepped, or maybe in your case, side-hopped the question.

Are Christians allowed to break the law because they believe that they should be able to?

Are Christians above the laws the rest of us are subject to?

Are Christians to be considered yet another "special class" that we have to bend over backwards to as a society?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Kalikiller

No one is shoving anything down your throat, although, you might consult with a therapist about that particular compulsion.

The laws of Idaho and the US are being respected and enforced; pure and simple.

No one's religious beliefs or practices are being dictated to them.

Religious freedom does not mean "do whatever you want whenever you want to."



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I haven't read past the first page so this may have been covered...
But,
Couldn't the government mandate that for profit businesses be open on Sundays?
And,
If they did, they could fine businesses that were closed on Sundays until they finally opened up for business on Sunday?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Oh, I'm well aware that many Christians, at least in my personal experience, are horrible, judgmental, hypocritical jerks who are only interested in trying to tell others how to live and when they don't get to do that, they whine and cry about being victimized.

But that has very little to do with Freedom and a lot to do with character flaws.

But, as I assumed, you've just side-stepped, or maybe in your case, side-hopped the question.

Are Christians allowed to break the law because they believe that they should be able to?

Are Christians above the laws the rest of us are subject to?

Are Christians to be considered yet another "special class" that we have to bend over backwards to as a society?


Why is it so difficult for you or anyone else to simply respect the fact that some people have different opinions based upon their religious faith?

It must be so wonderful for those of you who have all the answers to everything.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join