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: 18
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I find it incredibly ironic that you rant on about the religious freedom to dictate limitation on what is NOT okay to do, like marrying gays!

Face it. If certain religious factions had their way, gays wouldn't be allowed to even exist openly. Some would shoot them on sight!

Unfortunately, in order to live in a civilized society, concessions must be made, freedoms are limited. We HAVE to live together. Freedom, religious or not, is not an empirical right.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Is this particular 'chapel' an official place of worship ? Is it registered as such ?

Are the drive-thru Elvis chapels in Las Vegas also official places of worship because they use the word 'chapel' ?




The problem I'm seeing here is that these marriage businesses have adopted the word 'chapel', when in fact, they are not actually a chapel, an official place of worship.

Churches, cathedrals, chapels, synagogues, mosques, etc are all official places of worship and therefore, fall under a completely different set of rules and regulations. These registered places of worship do not fall under the same laws that a place of public business does, where human rights/discrimination laws are vehemently enforced across the board.

It has nothing to do with profit or non-profit, public or private... and everything to do with how it's legally registered. All businesses, whether public or private, profit or non-profit, must abide by certain laws at all times. The only time they don't, is when they are legally registered as a place of religious worship.

So if this Hitching Post wedding 'chapel' is not actually registered as a religious place of worship, then it absolutely must abide by any and all public business practice laws, like every other business has to in any 1st world country.



If there's a problem with anything, I'd say it's the flippant usage of the word 'chapel' to name a business that actually isn't.... and the business registration offices that allow it to happen.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Of course, now you're merely being factitious having realized that you've hopped yourself into a tight corner but ..

Of course, people have different opinions. Why would I be talking to you if I didn't realize that point?

I feel some degree of sorrow for these poor folks. The world is becoming more equitable around them, and they've not adjusted yet to the idea of all adult American citizens having the same rights as all.

I'm sure they are experiencing a crisis of conscience over being forced, in a way, to confront the idea that their beliefs are unfairly discriminatory and illegal. I'm sure that may impact their business model.

But understanding that they hold such beliefs doesn't include allowing them to break the law.

Religious freedom is not doing whatever you want whenever you want to.

That view actually cheapens what religion is.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Unfortunately, in order to live in a civilized society, concessions must be made, freedoms are limited. We HAVE to live together. Freedom, religious or not, is not an empirical right.


I may not like the answer, but the above is probably the most truthful reply I have received.

Freedoms are limited.

No truer words have been spoken.

I'll bow out now.

The answer has been delivered.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
So, all the times that multiple folks in this thread have offered a version of "religious freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want" just flew right by, huh?

What is utterly ironic to me is the amazing, astounding religious freedom that abounds and has always abounded in this country.

What is nauseatingly appalling is how many spit on that freedom because they can't use it to do whatever they want.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I think people confuse the boundries of organic law when it conflicts with natural law.

If there is doubt on whether or not making a profit determines if a religious observance is legally recognized or protected: The tax exempt status only applies to monetary exchange. You can still have a religious institution be legally protected by organic law without being exempt from taxes because it is protected by natural law no matter what.

As far as trumping anything.....natural law will ALWAYS win unto the law and any particular interpretation . If you have to pay taxes or not is irrelevant to that fact. That is in place to avoid unjustly making one population like NY pay for things in California ...like if the Omish in PA had to pay for prayer rooms in courthouses in TX. Thats not fair according to the law since it goes from state to state instead of from state to federal government and then to states evenly.


Your religion could be exclusively about profit....and it still has rights as a religion under US law. Sure you could argue that forcing one religious institution to pay taxes while others dont based on organic law alone is wrong or right morally or even legally if it apllies. But you cant counter that by removing or granting the states acceptance of that institution legally because it is not dependent on the states acceptance of it...hence natural law.
edit on 10 20 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, all the times that multiple folks in this thread have offered a version of "religious freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want" just flew right by, huh?

What is utterly ironic to me is the amazing, astounding religious freedom that abounds and has always abounded in this country.

What is nauseatingly appalling is how many spit on that freedom because they can't use it to do whatever they want.


What I dislike is people peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

The above poster was honest.

To paraphrase, he/she said, "Suck it up, buttercup. Ain't no such thing as religious freedom anymore".

I don't like the answer, but I appreciate the candor.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

1. Why don't you define your terms so we can all participate (not the textbook or dictionary versions, but what YOU mean when YOU say it)

"Organic Law"

"Natural Law"

2. So, whatever "natural law" is defined to be, you view it as some kind of superior quality that transcends all laws, legal codes, ethics and morality?

3. Our laws are very specific about what is and is not considered "exercise of religion." It's not a great mystery.

4. The same Constitution that sets up the "freedom of religion" in Amendment 1 sets up the entire structure of our government and establishes the rule of law. The two are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

I may not like the answer, but the above is probably the most truthful reply I have received.

Freedoms are limited.

No truer words have been spoken.

I'll bow out now.

The answer has been delivered.


Well, that's what Government is. To Govern is: To Limit. To Regulate. To Control. To Direct. etc.

Humanity obviously isn't ready for Freedom because the first thing they do with it is enslave, kill, destroy, etc. everything else around them. I don't like this fact any more than you do but let's face it, we can't handle the responsibility of too much freedom. Just look at history and who had the most Freedom to do what they wanted and what they chose to do with it. The more freedom someone has the more they seem to use it against others. Sad but true.
edit on 20-10-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

And here I thought you were gone ...

No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tadaman

1. Why don't you define your terms so we can all participate (not the textbook or dictionary versions, but what YOU mean when YOU say it)

"Organic Law"

"Natural Law"

2. So, whatever "natural law" is defined to be, you view it as some kind of superior quality that transcends all laws, legal codes, ethics and morality?

3. Our laws are very specific about what is and is not considered "exercise of religion." It's not a great mystery.

4. The same Constitution that sets up the "freedom of religion" in Amendment 1 sets up the entire structure of our government and establishes the rule of law. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state. In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

And here I thought you were gone ...

No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?


He said freedoms were limited.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

I find it incredibly ironic that you rant on about the religious freedom to dictate limitation on what is NOT okay to do, like marrying gays!

Face it. If certain religious factions had their way, gays wouldn't be allowed to even exist openly. Some would shoot them on sight!

Unfortunately, in order to live in a civilized society, concessions must be made, freedoms are limited. We HAVE to live together. Freedom, religious or not, is not an empirical right.


where does one persons freedom or rights end and other persons begin?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Yes, and you know that.

But Windword did not say that "there is no religious freedom" ... why don't we let WW speak for themselves, since you like to misquote and misspeak on others' behalf, and I obviously can't be trusted leftist/marxist/atheist/fascist operative that I am...

Windword, did you say to Beezzer that "there is no religious freedom?"



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

And here I thought you were gone ...

No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?


He said freedoms were limited.



yes. thats why we have LAWS. freedoms are limited because freedom is not synonymous with "doing the right thing". freedom does not guarantee respect or courtesy.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

And here I thought you were gone ...

No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?


He said freedoms were limited.



yes. thats why we have LAWS. freedoms are limited because freedom is not synonymous with "doing the right thing". freedom does not guarantee respect or courtesy.


That's why we have laws.

To restrict freedom.

Because freedom might not be nice.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I have had this shoved down my throat by intolerant gays, mostly from California. Never mind the fact that one of my best friends is gay. Religious beliefs and institutions ARE UNDER ATTACK. Did you read about the ministers in TX? Didn't think so. I'm not going to get into with you. Sorry if my username offends you. You can thank Before its trash (news)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dude, natural law is the foundation of organic law.

Natural law is inherent law, like the right to self defense.

Organic law is a nations or legal entities definition and established boundaries for and under a contract like the US constitution that establishes the government as laws that mitigate the natural laws between different people.

So organic laws define what self defense is, but they are based on natural law. The bill of rights is in essence a lay out of the US´s accepted natural laws.

I am not just making this up. This is the foundation of every legal system for the most part.

Where do you think your rights come from?

That doesnt mean that there arent grey areas to natural law. Just that some aspects of natural law require certain pre-established conditions be met. A huge one is if by exerting your natural rights you deny others of theirs then you cant say your natural rights trump those of others. A situation like that usually justifies the very study of law as its own institution since it can all get pretty convoluted.

Gay rights are usually argued under basic natural rights and legally protected individual rights. There is no clause in the constitution for example even talking about gay rights....for or against.

Religious freedom is pretty straight forward even though it falls into a grey area of natural law sometimes, like this one.

There is no such requirement anywhere in US law that states that for the free exercise of religious observance in the US that any religion is dependent on also having tax exempt status.

You can check this, please do. Never take someones word on something like that. You will find this is the reason why gay marriage took so long to win...It had to first be defined as an inalienable right. Inalienable by the state that is....or why certain ethnicities took longer to get legal protection. The establishment of their natural rights had to be proven first and then the process of having organic to law reflect what was proven takes place formally. That can take years to fully define completely...or even be an ongoing process for ever....


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

And here I thought you were gone ...

No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?


Of course not!

Freedom, whether it be religious freedom or personal freedom, is not an empirical right. There is no such thing as empirical freedom. Not in "organic law", "natural law" (what's the difference?") "religious law" or "governmental law".

The consequences of breaking governmental law are fines and imprisonment. The consequences of breaking religious law is excommunication, the consequences for breaking natural law is physical harm.

Apparently even God is not totally free. God can't interfere with free will, so I'm told, and can't even be in the same room with imperfection. That's why he created a separate room, called hell.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is registered as a 'religious corporation'.

But in order for it to fall under its own rules and regulations outside of standard business practice laws, it must also be legally recognized as an official place of worship: This means it must provide worship and other religious services under a specific recognized religious denomination, have a membership that is not associated with any other religious denominations, have a regular congregation attendance, have a distinct and defined ecclesiastical form of government within, and provide educational instruction services based on the creed of that specific religious denomination.

Without any of the above, then the only way it falls under its own laws and regulations as a distinct religious organization, is for it to be registered as a 501(c)(3) charity.

And since this wedding chapel does not fall under any of the above, then it is not officially recognized by the state or federal government as such, and therefore, falls under standard business laws and regulations instead.



The owners of this cute little business unfortunately did not think through how to originally set up, register, and operate their business practices in order to be able to legally enforce their religious beliefs under the operation of said business...

Moral of the story: If you want to be in the business of practicing religious doctrine of any one specific denomination, then you must be registered and legally recognized as such.




top topics



 
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join