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

This country is dead. The fact this is even proposed says it all. People want a totalitarian state.

They will get one soon enough.

it also amuses me that these homosexuals keep getting upset because the same organization that hates them won't bless their union. thats kind of silly. get a gay minister to bless your union. asking an anorexic to bake you a three layer chocolate cake is a crappy thing to do.

I am an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.
I will marry anybody to anything.
I prefer performing short duration marriages.
The marriage lasts as long as both parties agree upon and then expires with the option of renewing.
I performed a marriage for one couple that only lasted a millisecond.
It was over before they even kissed.
I had a polygamous marriage to two pancakes this morning.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: beezzer

I wonder if this applies to Muslim preachers as well?

Somehow, I'll bet it won't.......but if it does, things could get very interesting for sure!

It does so long as their belief does not infringe on mine. When they come to my place of work owned by me and tell me who I must run it to conform to them ... well, where does freedom work there? Sure, they don't want to eat bacon or pork, but is it fair to attempt to get me to force everyone else not to eat it while they are working for me?

To me, such a move wouldn't be any different than telling a Christian to conform to what two gays want when it forces a Christian to go in opposition to their beliefs.

a reply to: beezzer

Oh stop it, there's nothing Nazi-esque about this. It has always been this way, it's just that Gays are the newest recognized members of the public, just like non-whites were post civil rights movement and the same belly aching went on back then... how many times are we going to have to go through this? When you operate a business in the public you cannot pick and choose who are members of the public and who are not. Do you seriously want it otherwise because that's far more deserving of a zieg heil, to be honest. Imagine a country in which your son (sorry to get personal but I don't know how else to get through to you) is denied a college education, or any education, is denied bank accounts or loans, denied a vehicle, denied purchasing food or denied marrying the woman or man he loves because it's now legal to practice business with personal beliefs? For fecks sake dude, open your goddamn eyes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I have a suggestions: how about for every month that church refuses to marry a same sex couple, it has to pay taxes?

i feel this is a legitimate suggestion.

From my point of view all organizations should pay taxes if they have profit since all organizations should be treated equal. No Christian churches are supposed to have money anyway since it is Caesars from Jesus point of view and not of god. But that part is not something churches are very bad at informing the people about from my point of view.

Mark 12:17

And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I am an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.
I will marry anybody to anything.
I prefer performing short duration marriages.
The marriage lasts as long as both parties agree upon and then expires with the option of renewing.
I performed a marriage for one couple that only lasted a millisecond.
It was over before they even kissed.
I had a polygamous marriage to two pancakes this morning.

thats almost a mockery of marriage...as close as its coming to being a freely defined concept, ive always thought that the universal core of marriage was everlasting love. thats what its about, right? either you get married or its a fling. why switch the labels out for the sake of public propriety? I wanna have sex with this chick so we're gonna get married for 8 hours so I can look my mom in the eye after.

a reply to: beezzer

Skinhead Harry opens up a bar that only allows white people. Let's say he was able to afford a team of lobbyists to enact legislation that allowed him to operate in this fashion.

Now, let's say that town has non-white people living in it. These people pay taxes. Those taxes pay for the infrastructure in that city. The infrastructure that allows Mr. Harry to run his neon Swastika lights and pour his domestic swill from pressurized taps. That same infrastructure allows people to drive on roads that lead up to his bar.

Would non-white people in that city get a tax rebate since they can't use that bar?

If a regular for-profit business is allowed to discriminate (for any reason), it would open up that same sort of can of worms.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: seeker1963

When the missus I are were wed, we had counceling by the minister prior to the event.

As man and wife, he wanted us to understand the vows we were taking and took the ceremony seriously.

Yep. My husband and I were married by a minister who almost refused to marry us. We weren't a part of his congregation, so he didn't know us. He wanted to make sure that if he married us, he could feel that we both understood the seriousness of the vows and were, in his opinion, a match that stood a good chance of making it.

For our part, my husband and I wanted a private ceremony, but wanted to marry in the eyes of God. We were not and still are not church goers, but we felt that a JoP ceremony was not the kind of thing we wanted. We wanted a church and minister.

In the end, we compromised. He agreed if we would undergo some serious counseling session with him so that he could feel better about things. I'm glad he agreed. My husband and I are still going strong about 20 years later.

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: beezzer

This isn't a church. It's a for-profit chapel. It's no different than if they were orthodox Jews working at McDonalds, serving pork. Honestly, I think it's in bad taste to pick on them since it's kinda like a church but since it's a straight-up for-profit joint, they gotta play by the rules.

The day they start telling churches they need to officiate ceremonies that run counter to their religion is the day I will stand next to the fundies and conservatives with picket signs. That day, I will proudly stand in the corner of the Christian church in their defense.

This, however, is not that.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get tax exempt status?

a reply to: Kali74

So faith is secondary then.

Religion is not protected.

Tax-exempt status is.

Churches operate in the public. Churches deal with the public. Where does this end?

a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Is it though? The faith clearly says that marriage is between a man and a woman by both God and Jesus. You can't get much higher in authority than that.

Saying that not wanting to officiate ceremonies that you believe are, by their very nature, a mockery of what God said, is not hate, but compliance with your belief.

I take it you also think the Boy Scouts hate because they don't allow girls?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

You said it, not me.

I would like to see a solution, personally. Allowing regular for-profit businesses to discriminate is no more a solution than forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings.

There has got to be an option C.

I find it idiotic that people say that you can still have your beliefs, you just can't practice them.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Oh, so they could agree to marry the gays so that one partner in the ceremony must be opposite gender?

That's basically what you're telling him that you can write the contract terms to otherwise assuage your conscience which is against the spirit of the law you are advocating for.

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

You said it, not me.

I would like to see a solution, personally. Allowing regular for-profit businesses to discriminate is no more a solution than forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings.

There has got to be an option C.

I simply spoke the truth of the matter.

There is no religious freedom anymore.

originally posted by: tadaman
This country is dead. The fact this is even proposed says it all. People want a totalitarian state.

They will get one soon enough.

No, they don't want a totalitarian state. They just want things their way. As soon as it turns on them, they don't want it.

A totalitarian state turns on everyone sooner or later. Right now, we're in the sooner.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: skunkape23
I am an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.
I will marry anybody to anything.
I prefer performing short duration marriages.
The marriage lasts as long as both parties agree upon and then expires with the option of renewing.
I performed a marriage for one couple that only lasted a millisecond.
It was over before they even kissed.
I had a polygamous marriage to two pancakes this morning.

thats almost a mockery of marriage...as close as its coming to being a freely defined concept, ive always thought that the universal core of marriage was everlasting love. thats what its about, right? either you get married or its a fling. why switch the labels out for the sake of public propriety? I wanna have sex with this chick so we're gonna get married for 8 hours so I can look my mom in the eye after.

You are absolutely correct.
Why do you want to look your mother in the eyes post coitus? Just curious.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

You said it, not me.

I would like to see a solution, personally. Allowing regular for-profit businesses to discriminate is no more a solution than forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings.

There has got to be an option C.

I simply spoke the truth of the matter.

There is no religious freedom anymore.

sure there is. in the safety of your house. where you can do just about anything you want. if you want to be public and flamboyant and obnoxious about it, you bring the consequences on yourself.