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

a reply to: TzarChasm

Echoed by the teachings of the Buddha and Laotze as well.

It's not a popular idea around here though, have to pick aside, yer either fer us er agin us, etc.

Hard to divide and conquer if folks are finding ways to work together.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: beezzer

All churches have to comply with the whole tax exempt status thing. That is, if they want tax exempt status, they are not allowed political campaigning. This is why now the mayor of Houston has demanded that pastors give over their sermons to the government, so they can catch pastors in engaging in political dialogues.

The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.

churchesandtaxes.procon.org...

The problem with that is that these days, anything that someone finds anti-PC could be construed as "political." If a pastor gives a sermon on Christ ... say Matthew 19, and someone hears the part God making them male and female and all that ... They could decide to sue calling it anti-gay bigotry and political speech.

This is the problem.

These days, anything certain political groups don't like is linked to religion so that they can then call it a "religious" opposition by people who want to "impose theocracy." By doing that, they can instantly take away any legitimacy any other argument against their position might have.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TzarChasm

Echoed by the teachings of the Buddha and Laotze as well.

It's not a popular idea around here though, have to pick aside, yer either fer us er agin us, etc.

Hard to divide and conquer if folks are finding ways to work together.

divide and conquer is how progress is made apparently. have to perpetuate motion or we stagnate.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Careful, the terms "progress" and "progressive" take on whole new meanings around here ... bascially anything the predominantly right wing members don't agree with.

Somewhat like the term "PC" ... as if the politics of the Right has no "correctness" involved.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Ah, yes, you want it your way, and you want to force me to participate.

You can have your way, but you have no right to force me to participate.

Liberty is you getting your version of marriage FOR YOURSELF and leaving me out of it.

Equality is FORCING ME TO PARTICIPATE against my will.

See? You cannot have one AND the other. You can only have one.

But then, in the interests of EQUALITY, should I be able to go into a gay bar and complain that the music choice is discriminatory because there are no hymns being played? That the exotic dancers at a gentleman's club are exclusionary because they aren't male? That the local Halal grocery is discriminating because it doesn't sell bacon and pork chops butchered in the halal manner? That Black History Month doesn't celebrate white people and Hispanic heritage month doesn't celebrate Asians. Women's history month ought to celebrate men.

I mean, if we're all in for equality than why are there still so many discriminatory and exclusionary things in our society?

a reply to: ketsuko

Ah, yes, you want it your way, and you want to force me to participate.

i dont recall posting that.

You can have your way, but you have no right to force me to participate.

aight.

Liberty is you getting your version of marriage FOR YOURSELF and leaving me out of it.

correct.

Equality is FORCING ME TO PARTICIPATE against my will.

okay.

But then, in the interests of EQUALITY, should I be able to go into a gay bar and complain that the music choice is discriminatory because there are no hymns being played?

if its a public establishment it follows the same rules as all public establishments. if they want to discriminate, then they can turn it into a private club as explained previously. then they can do all the discriminating they want.

I mean, if we're all in for equality than why are there still so many discriminatory and exclusionary things in our society?

because the human race is the raging odious sphincter of planet earth.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ah, yes, you want it your way, and you want to force me to participate.

You can have your way, but you have no right to force me to participate.

Liberty is you getting your version of marriage FOR YOURSELF and leaving me out of it.

Equality is FORCING ME TO PARTICIPATE against my will.

See? You cannot have one AND the other. You can only have one.

Sure you can. Like you said above, "Liberty is you getting your version of marriage for yourself." That's all that is being asked. You can have your Straight Wedding and They can have their Gay Wedding. Win Win.

Equality isn't forcing anyone to participate against their will. It's about letting everyone be participants in social events if they choose to be. Gay's want to marry just like anyone else, that's all. Or that's all I'm supporting of that position anyway. I don't want anyone to be forced to join in if they don't want to on either side.

That problem is that one side is trying to block the other side from being able to participate. Gay's aren't stopping Straight Weddings, but Straights are stopping Gay Weddings. Do you see that??

See what I mean about extremism, Tzar?

It takes a concept like equality (which, politically speaking has always meant equal treatment before the law) and turns it into something coercive.

The opposite of equality is hierarchy, with some at the top and most at the bottom, which is what makes the bleating about freedom and liberty in the same sentence so obnoxious.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
as pointed out earlier, the hitching post is NOT a religious establishment but a business.

Attention!

Looks like the Hitching Post has taken steps to become a nonprofit religious corporation, so they'll be exempt from this law! It's a perfectly good solution!

The city of Coeur d’Alene has asked the Hitching Post to withdraw its religious freedom lawsuit in the wake of gay marriage becoming legal in Idaho. City attorney Michael Gridley wrote to the wedding chapel and pointed out that two weeks ago the business took steps to become a nonprofit religious corporation. Thus, the Hitching Post is exempt from the city’s ordinance that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Gridley said the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations and other organizations exercising First Amendment rights. The Hitching Post sued the city in anticipation that the city would use its anti-discrimination policy to force the chapel to perform same-sex weddings over its religious objections

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Source

Just curious.

City asked for lawsuit to be dropped. Did Hitching post comply?

Just curious, because even if they become a church --- couldn't they continue suit out of principle?

BTW: comments at that source are interesting. I'm without Internet at the moment (coming to you via library). So ignore if already discussed.

COMMENT: In today's CdA Press article, was this little gem: "When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman." This could get interesting.

www.spokesman.com...

It was never about religious freedom.

It's about a test case.

a reply to: mOjOm

No, this is forcing the officiator to participate against their will.

Doctors have laws that protect them from having to perform abortions against their will, but I guess pastors shouldn't?

And of course, none of the other examples of businesses and government practices in society that are discriminatory have been addressed by any of you.

The message I am getting is that sometimes it's OK except when it isn't, and you fine people are the only ones who get to be the arbiters of that?

You know, if I go into a Christian Wedding Chapel (which is what this was designed to be from its inception and on its business plan ... sort of like a Christian book store sells only Christian books and merchandise only with wedding ceremonies), I don't expect them to perform anything other than a Christian wedding ceremony which generally is only between a man and a woman. I wonder how many Muslims, Jews or Buddhists over the years got their panties in a wad over them not providing the appropriate service? And why do you think none of them did? Why is it somehow only gays who manage to get this lost when there are places that will do this?

originally posted by: Annee
Just curious.

City asked for lawsuit to be dropped. Did Hitching post comply?

I don't know. It's not being reported that I can find yet.

Just curious, because even if they become a church --- couldn't they continue suit out of principle?

They wouldn't have to. The city has never put any pressure on them or taken any action. Basically, even though they've turned away a couple gay couples, the couples didn't complain. What would they sue for? If they're exempt and the city has never tried to force them, there's no case.

COMMENT: In today's CdA Press article, was this little gem: "When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman." This could get interesting.

www.spokesman.com...

I would guess that they're not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation *yet* because the red tape hasn't gone through. Just a guess.

This is a pretty interesting case.

originally posted by: ketsuko
No, this is forcing the officiator to participate against their will.

Doctors have laws that protect them from having to perform abortions against their will, but I guess pastors shouldn't?

And of course, none of the other examples of businesses and government practices in society that are discriminatory have been addressed by any of you.

The message I am getting is that sometimes it's OK except when it isn't, and you fine people are the only ones who get to be the arbiters of that?

You know, if I go into a Christian Wedding Chapel (which is what this was designed to be from its inception and on its business plan ... sort of like a Christian book store sells only Christian books and merchandise only with wedding ceremonies), I don't expect them to perform anything other than a Christian wedding ceremony which generally is only between a man and a woman. I wonder how many Muslims, Jews or Buddhists over the years got their panties in a wad over them not providing the appropriate service? And why do you think none of them did? Why is it somehow only gays who manage to get this lost when there are places that will do this?

I'm not talking about this one specific case. I thought we were done with that anyway.

I was talking about whether or not you'd agree that of the two sides in this marriage battle there is One side which is trying to stop the other side from participating??? Not everyone of course, so let's just deal with the activists for right now.

I see Activists on the "Straight" side (that labels sux I know but let's just go with it for now) that are trying to stop marriage for Gays. But I don't see any Gays trying to stop weddings for "Straights".

**For the record I don't want anyone to be forced into participation and if they fit the requirements for those who are excluded from Discrimination Laws, so be it. These Ministers were not classified as such until they changed their Business Model to qualify for such status. If they qualify to be excluded from Discrimination Laws, fine, I'm not saying anything about it. But they weren't classified as such until they changed their Business Model to fit.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

How strange. But that came from the comment section right??? How sure are you that they are telling the truth??? If it is true that is certainly one hell of a strange twist in the story. I'd like to know if that is accurate.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

This is a pretty interesting case.

I like the part where they scrubbed their website of "Civil Marriages performed" before filing the lawsuit.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

How strange. But that came from the comment section right??? How sure are you that they are telling the truth??? If it is true that is certainly one hell of a strange twist in the story. I'd like to know if that is accurate.

This seems like an accurate read:

www.spokesman.com...

And an update (I think):

www.cdapress.com...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It's a religious business. A wee bit difference than a Starbucks.

I don't think so.

Discrimination is perfectly acceptable when the other religion of Government is involved.

Like them evil gun owners.

That is perfectly acceptable.

They draw the line at 'gay marriage' ! ! !

Funny part people are not 'born' married.

Some people get married out of love, and under the eyes of GOD.

Others just want to use state fascism to give 'equality' so the 'discriminated' party gets the cash, and the perks of 'straight' people.

And i forgot to mention.

Justice's of the Peace can marry.

Captians of Ships can marry.

And thesedays anyone can form a church, and get a license on the internets.

IMO it is ALL about faux outrage.

Always, ALWAYS, a certain lot going around telling X that Y is 'oppressing' them.

That is their SOP.

a reply to: Annee

I just found the cdpress article myself. What a weird twist. Why would Knapp say they aren't opperating as a non profit if he recently applied for that status??? Unless he just meant that he isn't operating as one yet since the change maybe hasn't taken effect yet or something.

But him saying he's never met ADF Attorney David Cortman, when that is who is representing them legally in this case is even more strange. Somebody is either confused about the detail here or once again we're back to somebody just straight up Lying their butts off and playing some kind of political con job on everyone.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Somebody is either confused about the detail here or once again we're back to somebody just straight up Lying their butts off and playing some kind of political con job on everyone.

Probably both.

What I think is "NOT FOR PROFIT" is not in their thought process.

I don't think for a second they want to go to non-profit. They want to find a way around it.

They should just sell the business. There is too much factual history of their business not being religious focused.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So if they were only in it for the money, then why would they even care about gay marriage?

If they aren't in it for the money, why aren't they a church? Why do they sell marriages?

Why isn't the Catholic Supply a church? They sell religious articles. You know like bibles and communion trays and rosaries.

The difference being if a homosexual couple wish to buy a friggin rosary - they can.