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: 19
53
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

That's why we have laws.

To restrict freedom.

Because freedom might not be nice.


Over simplified but, yes, in some cases to Restrict. Not Freedom itself, since Freedom is a conceptual thing and not something which is under any control. But to Restrict Peoples Actions.

Freedom is neither good or bad, it just is. People on the other hand can be complete and total Genocidal Pricks and Sadistic A-Holes. They sometimes like to Kill, Torture and Brutalize other Life Forms around them simply because they can. Natural Freedom is granted to all living creatures in the same general way for them each to use to whatever potential they might use it for. However, no other creature aside from Humans have chosen to use their Potential Freedom in such ways.

Sure, they may eat each other or kill each other for sport sometimes even. But name one other creature that has established a Military Industrial Complex, Countless Torture Devices and Procedures, Planned for Complete Planet Wide Domination, Engineered and Deployed Endless Variations of War Machines, New Diseases, Poisons and Proudly use Mind Control techniques in every possible way against every available mind there is??? There are none. Just us. Because that is what we choose to do when we are Free to do whatever we can.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge
If that were true atheists would not be legally protected beyond freedom of speech, because they too dont have tax exempt status. When they file suit for infringement of their civil rights its based on laws covering religious observance OR free speech. Free speech itself is also based on being able to think and believe what you want. It goes further to also include your right to propagate those ideas publicly with legal protection.

If you had to have tax exempt status to be a valid religion unto a court of law, then you could never have your own particular faith. In essence you are saying that in order to believe what you want that the government has to first give you permission by validating your faith with a form and tax exempt status.

Like I said before, tax exempt status is so a Jewish community in NY doesnt pay for Christian citizens needs in PA for example, no matter how large the particular population is compared to NY Jews or how much they vote themselves more money. You would run the risk of, say,having the religious tax monies from an orthodox Jew who is ideologically opposed to war paying for the standing army of the country even though his personal faith forbids it. (religious money = donations to or from you, your church or your god as you see it and your faith). That is making one a state religion or to benefit as one based on its popularity within the country and the numbers of its followers.

Tax exempt status is a product of organic law used to mitigate natural law between different religious entities. Things have a reason. The people who made our legal system were actually really smart. It is not a condition or mandate for religious freedom.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




They are not forced to practice their business. They have a choice, comply with the law, close their business, or suffer the consequences. To recap what you have chosen to ignore...


hahah This is NOT a choice! If I stick a gun to your head and say gimme all your money! Is it okay then? I mean you have a choice right? You could just gimme all your money, or if you don't suffer the consequences...

This is absolutely rediculous and would not be accepted in any facet of the average mans life! But for gov it is okay? Let me tell you a little something... FORCE is never okay!... Okay? And it doesn't matter one jot WHO is doing the forcing either...

Do you know what the definition of terrorism is? I dare you to look it up! Then I dare you to put up the definition of terrorism next to gov and see if there is any likeness, see if the shoe fits... No... I double dare you! XD
edit on 20-10-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.

And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.

When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.

Many here would enjoy any law that would beat christians about the head and shoulders.

But what they don't realise is that future laws might get them as well.

So for now, I suppose the best course of action is to keep the mouth shut, keep religion behind closed doors.

At least until that is taken away as well.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Not having read the whole thread ( limited internet access round here ), I don't know if this has already been said:
Prison sex being what it is, I wonder how many weddings these " non loving thy rainbow neighbour" will have to preside over in the big house, and how many of these " marriages" will involve them selves?

oh well, I wonder what Jesus would have done?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




In essence you are saying that in order to believe what you want that the government has to first give you permission.


I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that in order to run a business under a specific religious doctrine you must be registered and legally recognized as such.

What a person believes on their own time has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

This thread is about being able to enforce one's religious beliefs into the operations of a legal entity, otherwise known as a business. A legal entity falls under certain laws, rules, and regulations based on how that legal entity is registered.

If you want to own and operate a business that is legally recognized in the country it operates within, then you must agree to specific laws and regulations of said country... those laws and regulations are variable and ultimately dependent upon how that business is specifically registered.

These laws are in place in order to ensure that all citizens operate within a conducively run society.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
FORCE is never okay!... Okay? And it doesn't matter one jot WHO is doing the forcing either...



Really??? Never???

So we shouldn't Force Murderers to stop killing people by sending them to jail??? We shouldn't force People to follow the law??? We should NEVER force someone to take responsibility for the actions they choose to take???? Never???



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Ok, fair enough. But these are businesses based on religious authority for marriage. Its not like a lawyers office where a legal service is offered. These are ORDAINED,meaning religiously trained people offering a religious service. You can charge for "salvation" as we have seen over the years.

This is like saying that nuns who sell Jam should lose their Tax exempt status because those jars of Jam are made and sold explicitly for a profit as a business. Or a rectory for selling rosaries for a profit. You can make profit as a religion and keep your religious freedom if you are a religion and meet the criteria. What ever that is. Ask Rastas how they proved they were a religion.What ever. Point is a business can be a religious business and not be in conflict of law.

I used to have a Catholic goods store near my house that was made for and by the church for a profit. They refused to sell bibles and rosaries to metal heads for fear that they would use them for desecration purposes in black masses. Thats a legally protected religious business refusing service based on musical genre and clothing...yet still perfectly legal.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Danbones

You wonder what jesus would have done?

Guess you haven't read sodom and gomorrah then XD (jesus being the son of god and all)

I'm not religious one bit btw, all a load of codswallop in my opinion and it isn't an uneducated opinion, I was raised catholic and studied the bible when I was 18 too off my own back... Non-sense the lot of it...

BUT it's pretty clear in the bible they didn't take too kindly to homosexuality, which just adds to my point of the bible being a load of non-sense.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Meee32
FORCE is never okay!... Okay? And it doesn't matter one jot WHO is doing the forcing either...



Really??? Never???

So we shouldn't Force Murderers to stop killing people by sending them to jail??? We shouldn't force People to follow the law??? We should NEVER force someone to take responsibility for the actions they choose to take???? Never???


Erm, killing someone is using force... So they then are against the no force policy... No? And then you can stop them killing other people... But hey guess what... Gov, they tend to kill a lot of people, but I bet you are in support of that one... Cos well, it's gov and all... XD

EDIT: How on earth can you even compare killing someone to someone refusing a service... I mean 0.o
edit on 20-10-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


No its not the minister's responsibility, but the minister is still giving the thumbs up by performing the ceremony.


Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
source

Why you simply refuse to understand that that may not set well with a Christian minister or any Christian involved in the ceremony is beyond my comprehension.


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.


But someone who wholeheartedly believes they're a woman trapped inside a man's body is perfectly sane right? I don't hear invisible beings btw.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Linky


For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.


Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.


I am normally the first person to slam the church for controlling tactics to subvert evolution of equal rights for all . But in this case, this is the wrong way to go about it. Equality only works when people are treated equally. No one is more important than another. And, while I've always stated that if you're too ignorant to understand science, you should try organized religion, the church should be allowed to practice freedom of speech & religion. Meaning, they don't have to agree & as long as they aren't advocating violence against individuals, they are well within their rights.
This declaration is ridiculous and the only thing that will come from it is liability, imo. But, the government will continually try to challenge our rights so we can't be surprised by their attempts to do so. We must choose solidarity to stem the flow of tyranny.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Another way of seeing this is demanding a Muslim goods store that sells Korans to sell you a Koran even though you say that you want them to make political statement by burning them. That is expressly forbidden by their faith so they can legally say No and to buy them online or elsewhere. That they dont sell them for that or to your kind and so you can just find another business to cater to your needs.

You CAN sell bibles and Korans to support your religion and its followers. No one owns the intellectual property rights to any faith based text or item. You can even just start your own religion based on that very same text or items for ritual, change the wording and practice slightly and then turn around and sell them as mandatory items for new religion and do s for a profit. All legal and still protected by your religious freedom as well.

Scientology much? They charge people and deny people all the time.

You can even legally sell your soul to a religious entity for a profit or salvation itself. That doesnt negate their right to deny service to people who they think arent going to be true to their laws or worthy according to their criteria...or people your faith thinks as not being the chosen ones or what ever.

HELL, you can legally sell "SALVATION" itself. Think about that. That is and was a documented religious practice by Catholics for many years. They can bring that back, charge for salvation and deny it to people they dont think are worthy. Still legal. Still a business for profit too.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.

And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.


You mean like how some enjoy the freedom to tell a certain group of society that they are not equal to others. How they enjoy telling these other people how Unnatural they are and what an Abomination they are and how they should be Put to death for their Sins against God, Nature and Humanity.

Like I said, I don't like it any more than you but the fact is, People Enjoy Hurting Other People. It's too bad some people find that to be enjoyable because it's a problem.


When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.

Many here would enjoy any law that would beat Christians about the head and shoulders.


That may be so. But nobody is trying to pass any such laws. What I see is Christians trying to pass laws making them special. Special so they can discriminate but not be discriminated against. Special so they don't have to follow the law while everyone else does. Special so that their belief grants them favor while others beliefs grant them nothing.

Everyone else seems to be able to find some common ground in most cases. All but the Radical Evangelical Fundamentalists. For example, everyone can agree to say "Happy Holidays" which covers Christmas, Hanuka, Quanza, etc. But not the Fundimentalists. They insist it has to be Christmas. Their Holiday only. Why is that???


But what they don't realize is that future laws might get them as well.

So for now, I suppose the best course of action is to keep the mouth shut, keep religion behind closed doors.

At least until that is taken away as well.


Are you serious??? A Million Christian churches. Christian Radio, TV, Magazines, etc. Dominance of Religion for thousands of years in every society on the planet and you really want me to believe Poor old helpless Religion is being Silenced or Kept Hidden??? Please. Exactly who is trying to keep who in the closet???



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

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.


and what part of having the freedom to marry whomever you love is not nice? other than the obvious witty rejoinders concerning the struggles of marriage.
edit on 20-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Slippery slope.

It's a very slippery slope.

If we start accepting this, then it's only a small step to the state mandating what goes on inside of religious institutions.



Right. The justification for it is that it's a for-profit biz, but likely it's just a first step toward their ultimate goal.

Williamson observes: “It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity. American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.”
But liberals want to control our thoughts too. They seek to stigmatize heterodox thought as bigoted or criminal or otherwise beyond the pale. They seek to destroy those with whom they disagree.

Jonah Goldberg wrote the book on Liberal Fascism. “It is my argument,” he writes, “that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion.” In a related column, Jonah explains:


According to contemporary liberalism, the government is the control room of society, where problems get solved, where institutions get their marching orders, where the oceans are commanded to stop rising. Each institution must subscribe to the progressive vision: All oars must pull as one. We are all in it together. We can do it all, if we all work together. Yes, we can.

www.powerlineblog.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




I used to have a Catholic goods store near my house that was made for and by the church for a profit. They refused to sell bibles and rosaries to metal heads for fear that they would use them for desecration purposes in black masses. Thats a legally protected religious business refusing service based on musical genre and clothing...yet still perfectly legal.


You just said it yourself.

This business was set up and run by a church... a legally recognized religious organization.

How they registered that business, is how they were able to conduct that business.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32

Erm, killing someone is using force... So they then are against the no force policy... No? And then you can stop them killing other people... But hey guess what... Gov, they tend to kill a lot of people, but I bet you are in support of that one... Cos well, it's gov and all... XD

EDIT: How on earth can you even compare killing someone to someone refusing a service... I mean 0.o


No, I hate Government almost always. Certainly don't like them going around murdering others. But the fact is, we can't rely on the "Nobody uses Force" rule now can we. Why, because not everyone is that respectful to others. So we have rapists, killers and so forth. Now, as individuals no government is needed, but what happens is that these Rapists and Killers group together and become unstoppable by other individuals. So we make Gov. and Law Enforcement to stop them from doing such things.

Problem is, eventually Law Enforcement and Gov. have a habit of also doing those things too. But that's how it is. Force is just a fact of life. There are Forces working for and against us all at all times. It would nice if your "No Force" rule worked, but it doesn't and won't, ever. I'm not happy about it either, but that is how it is. So why not face reality and accept Force as part of reality and try and establish some form of managing it???



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: beezzer
I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.

And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.


You mean like how some enjoy the freedom to tell a certain group of society that they are not equal to others. How they enjoy telling these other people how Unnatural they are and what an Abomination they are and how they should be Put to death for their Sins against God, Nature and Humanity.

Like I said, I don't like it any more than you but the fact is, People Enjoy Hurting Other People. It's too bad some people find that to be enjoyable because it's a problem.


When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.

Many here would enjoy any law that would beat Christians about the head and shoulders.


That may be so. But nobody is trying to pass any such laws. What I see is Christians trying to pass laws making them special. Special so they can discriminate but not be discriminated against. Special so they don't have to follow the law while everyone else does. Special so that their belief grants them favor while others beliefs grant them nothing.

Everyone else seems to be able to find some common ground in most cases. All but the Radical Evangelical Fundamentalists. For example, everyone can agree to say "Happy Holidays" which covers Christmas, Hanuka, Quanza, etc. But not the Fundimentalists. They insist it has to be Christmas. Their Holiday only. Why is that???


But what they don't realize is that future laws might get them as well.

So for now, I suppose the best course of action is to keep the mouth shut, keep religion behind closed doors.

At least until that is taken away as well.


Are you serious??? A Million Christian churches. Christian Radio, TV, Magazines, etc. Dominance of Religion for thousands of years in every society on the planet and you really want me to believe Poor old helpless Religion is being Silenced or Kept Hidden??? Please. Exactly who is trying to keep who in the closet???


I'm going to step out of my usual methodology and just go ahead and quote from a more Progressive viewpoint on this....


That conservatives are susceptible to becoming fascist is relatively obvious. Impressed by what they see as the moral faults in human nature, conservatives strive to control it. Since moral values cannot be determined by majority vote, in extreme cases conservatives can feel justified in the moral minority over-ruling the straying majority.
That liberals are also susceptible to fascism is less obvious only because the moral faults on which liberals primarily fasten are selfishness and intolerance. And the virtue that counters them is openness, which seems the opposite of fascism. However, when selfishness and intolerance are majority failings, liberals can feel every bit as strongly as conservatives that they are a moral minority justified in over-ruling the majority.



Liberals are therefore fascist in legalizing same-sex marriage over the wishes of the majority of Californians. Liberals justify over-ruling the majority in this case because “it’s right.” The implication is that they don't just believe it’s right (which would undermine their unconditional demands) but that they know it's right (which makes opposition to their view intolerable).



However, in a democracy the majority rules — not because the majority is right but because true democrats know that, when people disagree, (1) government cannot reliably determine who is right and who is wrong; and (2) for that very reason, government cannot countenance rule by a minority merely because they're convinced they know what's right. Power is therefore given to majority vote by default. That’s why democracy is the worst of all possible political systems, except for the alternatives.


garynini.com...

Interestingly, we are not a democracy, we are a Republic with some democratic functions. We have a representative function. That means all segments of society are to be considered. However, it tends to be some kind of lobbying which gets minorities acceptance. If you thought that minorities are not lobbyists, you might need another guess.
I also do not really agree with this author's opinion that a minority rule defines fascism. Otherwise he is really calling our Republic a fascist type of government, which it is not. Fascism really has it's roots in Progressivism, as Jonah Goldberg explains. The Democrat Party actually has some strong historical roots in the Progressive movement of the early part of the century, which embraced fascism, eugenics, birth control, etc. President Wilson was the perfect example.


Wilson created the first official propaganda department in the US. A week after Congress declared war on Germany, Wilson created a government apparatus whose sole purpose was to lie to the American people, the first modern ministry for propaganda in the West. It was called the Committee on Public Information and was led by journalist George Creel.

Edward Bernays, an adviser to Wilson and participant in CPI operations, characterized the mission of CPI as the “engineering of consent” and “the conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.”


conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com...

Engineering of consent....also known contemporarily as "The Delphi Technique"... manufacturing consensus(as in the UN IPCC manufacturing of consensus of scientists toward their goal of controlling us through regulations based on Climate Change theory)

and this

Wilson harshly suppressed dissent and resistance among citizens and the press
At Wilson’s urging, a Sedition Act (not unlike the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 ) forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.

In the fashion of a police state, the Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. A letter to federal attorneys and marshals said that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obey the law; keep your mouth shut.”
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com...


Sound like anybody else we know?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: tadaman




I used to have a Catholic goods store near my house that was made for and by the church for a profit. They refused to sell bibles and rosaries to metal heads for fear that they would use them for desecration purposes in black masses. Thats a legally protected religious business refusing service based on musical genre and clothing...yet still perfectly legal.


You just said it yourself.

This business was set up and run by a church... a legally recognized religious organization.

How they registered that business, is how they were able to conduct that business.


even non religious organizations can discriminate for religious purposes. there is this bookstore in town that my friend complained about because she is heavily pagan and they removed most (if not all) of their pagan materials because the store is owned by christians.




top topics



 
53
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join