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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
So, with that, since the Gun has nothing to do with a person. Customers can leave their "Gay" outside as well.

But they cannot. Just like race, gender, etc. What's funny is that I actually expect this sort of response from you.

I guess, to you, because owning a dog is a right, I should be allowed to take him anywhere. Right? WRONG! Because dogs don't have legal rights to equality and neither do guns.

Gay has nothing to do with a person. Gay is brought into the mix by that person. Gay has no rights. Gay does not have an outward difference from straight.

And there is no right to own a dog. There is a right however addressing firearms.

Gay is as much an add on by the person, as a firearm.

If neither are brought to the attention of others, no one else knows it is there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are and always have been many different types of weddings. Expanding marriage laws to include gay couples creates a demand for another type of wedding. No one is obligated to meet that demand. If you want to open a chapel that only offers same sex weddings, then by all means have at it. I'm willing to bet you won't find a single person who would object.

a reply to: beezzer

Too late to play dumb now

Lower your hackles and read...

You have nothing to fear from a little bit of adversarial joshing - you seem to enjoy it pretty much when someone else is in your sights

:-)

I'm totally serious - private clubs can discriminate. Open to the public businesses cannot

We were all moving along nicely towards a time and place where color, philosophy, ideology, religion, age, gender, gender preference...could still be united under laws designed to allow us to live side by side in relative peace and harmony

But, whatever. **** it!

Let's just get on with our regression. Let the games begin

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Can religions discriminate?

I think that has been discussed.

What we have here is a religious business. Now we can all split hares ( ) and talk about the business portion and ignore the religious aspect, it's what helps some people.

Just like many who are for businesses discriminating against people who open-carry.

They justify their favor for discrimination.

But I am so glad that there are those self-proclaimed advanced members of the species to help us along the way.

Perhaps they can further illustrate how to be hypocrites.

:-D

originally posted by: windword

Silly me! Here, all this time I thought he was talking about the sexual union of two people that love each other makes them one flesh.

Are you trying to prove the point I made about consummation for me?

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are and always have been many different types of weddings. Expanding marriage laws to include gay couples creates a demand for another type of wedding. No one is obligated to meet that demand. If you want to open a chapel that only offers same sex weddings, then by all means have at it. I'm willing to bet you won't find a single person who would object.

Hitching Post has two types of weddings listed. One is with a photo package, one is without. There is not (although, I'm sure there soon will be) no qualifications that only Christian weddings are offered, or qualifications that only male/female weddings are offered, etc. You can't define the services offered; Hitching Post has done that already.

A wedding is performed to marry two people who can be married. Any two adults, regardless of sex, can be married in Idaho now.

No one is obligated to meet any demand aside from providing the services they advertise to the public equitably and without discrimination. Businesses provide services or they close.

Again, the Hitching Post is a public accommodation; it must accommodate the public.

In light of Idaho law, there is no legal distinction for "same-sex weddings."

You're creating an artificial distinction where none exists to prop up a fallacious and salacious argument.

Marriage equality has happened. Businesses adapt or die.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TzarChasm

In Idaho, now, there is no "gay" wedding. A marriage is a marriage; a wedding is a wedding.

It's against the law to discriminate based on sex as well as on sexual orientation.

This is really not a difficult concept.

oh so its legal in idaho. the hitching post is starting to look less and less justified...not that they care.

a reply to: beezzer

Perhaps they can further illustrate how to be hypocrites.

What the Christians are asking for is a separate set of laws for them - and then laws for everyone else

By the way - these laws were hard won. Civil rights are for everyone - not just the religious

You think you understand what the word hypocrite means?

:-)

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

When the service is offered as advertised (for a price) to the PUBLIC and they refuse the service to a certain group of people, then it's considered discrimination.

The service they offer is a ceremony that joins a man and a woman who become husband and wife. They do not offer ceremonies that join 2 men to become husband and husband, or two women who become wife and wife.

It is not discrimination because they do not offer a ceremony that joins 2 people of the same sex. If they refused to marry a couple because one of them is gay or one of them is black, then that would be discrimination.

LOL!

You mean their magic doesn't work on gay couples? Or, do you mean that they don't have the right magical incantation that joins them together? Or, maybe the magic doesn't work at all on a chromosomal level for same sex couples?

I don't recall Jesus saying anything about the quality of the "Rabbi" that performs "the ceremony" is what joins a "man and a women". Silly me! Here, all this time I thought he was talking about the sexual union of two people that love each other makes them one flesh.

This is a classic. You belittle the ceremony but demand they perform it for gays! I mean, wow, and you were worried about hypocrisy!?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: beezzer

Perhaps they can further illustrate how to be hypocrites.

What the Christians are asking for is a separate set of laws for them - and then laws for everyone else

By the way - these laws were hard won. Civil rights are for everyone - not just the religious

You think you understand what the word hypocrite means?

:-)

What part of the 1st Amendment eludes you?

;-D

a reply to: Bone75

I'm not sure what your point of "consummation" is. I know of no regulation, secular or religious, that requires the officiator to ensure "proper" consummation before a wedding can be considered valid.

You do know that heterosexual couples also participate in "sodomy", ie oral sex and back door exploration, don't you. Do you really think the church or the government should get involved in what types of consummation are legitimate to seal a marriage?

What goes on the marriage bed is of no concern to anyone but the couple involved. PERIOD.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
So, with that, since the Gun has nothing to do with a person. Customers can leave their "Gay" outside as well.

But they cannot. Just like race, gender, etc. What's funny is that I actually expect this sort of response from you.

I guess, to you, because owning a dog is a right, I should be allowed to take him anywhere. Right? WRONG! Because dogs don't have legal rights to equality and neither do guns.

Gay has nothing to do with a person. Gay is brought into the mix by that person. Gay has no rights. Gay does not have an outward difference from straight.

And there is no right to own a dog. There is a right however addressing firearms.

Gay is as much an add on by the person, as a firearm.

If neither are brought to the attention of others, no one else knows it is there.

last time i was aware, you dont buy a 6 ft 4 frame in a store, nor do you have to pass a background check in order to have blonde hair. so i dont think being gay is in any way comparable to bearing or purchasing a firearm.

and heterosexuals broadcast their relationships all the time, so why should homosexuals? holding hands, embracing, kissing, dancing together, sharing a shake, attending an official function as a pair, etc.

a reply to: Dfairlite

A marriage ceremony isn't a magical ritual or rite. It's public declaration and a promise of commitment, love and devotion, overseen by witnesses. There is nothing in the marriage ceremony that makes a couple "one flesh".

That happens in the sexual union that the two partake in.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Bone75

I'm not sure what your point of "consummation" is. I know of no regulation, secular or religious, that requires the officiator to ensure "proper" consummation before a wedding can be considered valid.

You do know that heterosexual couples also participate in "sodomy", ie oral sex and back door exploration, don't you. Do you really think the church or the government should get involved in what types of consummation are legitimate to seal a marriage?

What goes on the marriage bed is of no concern to anyone but the couple involved. PERIOD.

Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.

www.usmarriagelaws.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I can guarantee that no matter what type of wedding they've performed in the past, the last thing the minister said at the end of every one of them was "I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride".

Forcing him or her to change that statement changes the product. Hence the need for another product, which the chapel is not obligated to provide.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.

The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

A marriage ceremony isn't a magical ritual or rite. It's public declaration and a promise of commitment, love and devotion, overseen by witnesses. There is nothing in the marriage ceremony that makes a couple "one flesh".

That happens in the sexual union that the two partake in.

Marriage ceremonies can be, and often are, religious, thus the reason priests, bishops, etc. perform them. Yes there are secular ceremonies, but that's not what the hitching post is selling.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.

The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.

So is science. Homosexuals cannot consummate their union. Sexual intercourse is not possible. Sexual acts are, but not sexual intercourse.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes. The Hitching Post Wedding has advertised that they sell secular wedding.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can guarantee that no matter what type of wedding they've performed in the past, the last thing the minister said at the end of every one of them was "I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride".

Forcing him or her to change that statement changes the product. Hence the need for another product, which the chapel is not obligated to provide.

Ding Ding Ding.