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: 43
53
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Leahn

I beg to differ with you. If anyone actually did go in (which seems questionable at this point) and try to buy a wedding package, they're not demanding that Donald or Evelyn perform the wedding, merely that the business does. Actually, depending on the version of the story you read, some folks tried to go in, were rejected, and took their business somewhere else.


That's not what the original story said. Keep in mind that I only read the original story. While I am aware that new facts have arisen, since the thread is pretty much dead by now and nobody seems to have understood what the central issues is, let me quote from the original post " 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"

So, while you all have been arguing apples over oranges about whether it is legal for a business to deny services for any reason for over 40 pages, this is not what the post was about. The post was that, yes, gay right actvists wanted gay people to be able to force any ordained ministers to perform their weddings, including Donald and Evelyn. So it is not about having their wedding at their chappel. It is about forcing them to perform a wedding at their chappel.

As I said before, the place is irrelevant. The post only says that ordained ministers have to celebrate.

I understand that this did not happen. I also understand that they asked city officials if that could happen, and city officials told them that it could happen, and they proactively sued to prevent it from happening even once.

The reason why religious people like me are not satisfied with the fact that the couple in question solved their problem by becoming a non-profit is that it does not solve the problem for everyone else. The law is still there. It still applies to every other minister out there. Every other business. And it is still a violation of freedom of religion because it is not about the wedding. It is not about marriage. It is about performing the ceremony. About being forced to do it against your religions convictions.

Still, this is still minor issues. This is a dead thread and while it was entertaining to read it all day long, if I say what I have to say about this question, it will simply be lost, so I am not gonna write a long post explaining why everyone is so damn wrong about what are the issues here if nobody is ever gonna read it. It is late and I don't feel like it.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, separate but equal is okay ...

You really misunderstood what I said...reread it or even quote where I even stated and/or insinuated "separate but equal"


...you don't mind if "their kind" get married, just not in the same place that you could if you chose to, Christian or not, divorced or not, as long as you've got $90 and license, "step right up, step right ..."


Project much? Why enjoy your happiest day in a place that doesn't cater to you when you have A PERFECT PLACE ACROSS THE STREET to accomplish your goal. Or why not just open up your own wedding chapel?

Again, it is targeted as there was a viable alternative to achieve marriage.

Got it.

*barf*

edit on 21-10-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

A law was passed it applied to all buisnesses.


Seems to me those such as yourself are upset because people of designation must comply to the laws.

Are there any other instances in life where ones designation (in this case minister) exclude them from following the laws?

IMO I don't care if a person is a minister, priest, prince, rich or poor the laws apply to everyone. Maybe you disagree.
edit on 21-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Are there any other instances in life where ones designation (in this case minister) exclude them from following the laws?



Officially, no.

Unofficially, Law Enforcement Officer, Politician, Anyone who's very Wealthy, Teenager of Rich Parents who suffer from Affluenza, Anyone in the Bush Family, Hmmmmm......that's it for now I think, but I know there are more, just can't think of them all.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

a reply to: Grimpachi

A law was passed it applied to all buisnesses.


Unless it conflicts with other laws.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

LOL

Yeah we all know they get away with murder but I was talking officially here.

I did think of two instances though. I believe both priests and psychiatrists can not be compelled to testify or report crimes oh make that three lawyers as well.

A fine bunch there.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I looked around little and can't find the price packages for this for profit business. Why I think it's important to see is I want to know if they charge for the reciting of the vows and just sell the bells and whistles or is it all part of the package. This come to mind because there are preachers in my area that will do the wedding free but they they have a wife of family member that does wedding planning. Most of these will do the ceremony free of charge weather or not the couple uses the other services. They might ask for gas money if they have to travel far.

My question is if the vows service is not charged for then is it still under the umbrella of a for profit business?

I'm sorry if this was covered I went a few pages into replies and this come to mind and I didn't read the plethors of replies after the first few pages.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DrumJunkie

Lol at their site exceeding bandwidth limit.

But anyway using Wayback Machine (internet archive site) the latest I could find was in 2013:

hitchingpostweddings.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...://hitchingpostweddings.com

After that the site changed and it has been the same since which I find strange.

hitchingpostweddings.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...*/hitchingpostweddings.com...

edit - what the heck??? Why won't the links work? Just quote me and you'll see the links.
edit on 10/21/2014 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mOjOm

LOL

Yeah we all know they get away with murder but I was talking officially here.

I did think of two instances though. I believe both priests and psychiatrists can not be compelled to testify or report crimes oh make that three lawyers as well.

A fine bunch there.


I believe all three are legally obligated to report credible threats of crimes that have not yet occurred.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Nope, no misunderstanding here. At all. You're still claiming the same thing.

You're suggesting that the place across the street that caters to "my kind" is just as good as the one on this side that doesn't.

What exactly did you think "separate but equal" means?

If a place serves the public, it "caters" to me. Welcome to the 21st century.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

So, you reacted to a story that was incorrect ... and you want ... recognition for doing so?

Is that about the gist of it?

And now that the facts have been revealed, you have even less reason to tell us all why you think that discrimination should be okay and that Christians should be in a special class set above the rest of us and above the law?

You can safely skip it; it's been done here over and over. Neither you nor we missed anything.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


You and the others have spent dozens of pages mocking christianity, religion, conservatives and playing word-garbage with definitions of "business".


Mocking people is not something beezzer would ever do - right beeze? :-)

The most interesting part of that whole sentence is word-garbage

The law is the law. If you don't like the law - then work to change it. The definition of business figures in to all of this. In case you hadn't noticed - this thread hasn't been about taxes, even though at a certain point - when details of the story began to change - it suddenly became about taxes

:-)

No, beezzer - it's been about whether or not this was a business that was discriminating, or a church that's been discriminating - all along

We knew that, even if you didn't



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy


Project much? Why enjoy your happiest day in a place that doesn't cater to you when you have A PERFECT PLACE ACROSS THE STREET to accomplish your goal. Or why not just open up your own wedding chapel?


I'm sure there's a perfectly acceptable water fountain down the street - and an appropriate place at the lunch counter

Separate but equal doesn't fly any more - and what you're suggesting is just more of the same thing

The laws are changing - rights are changing. This makes some people happy - and some people very uncomfortable to the point of fury. Your religious beliefs don't mean that you get to treat me like less of a person - not legally. This all has to come down to the details now, because denying people their rights is going to happen in ways that we never even considered before

All people in this country have equal rights. Enforcing those rights has always been complicated. People don't have to like it - and they won't

That's too bad, but it changes nothing



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Kali74

*snip*

Many of you have shown that you would support anything that took away freedom. Your irrational hatred for personal freedoms, religious freedoms and personal responsibilities have become quite apparent.

I find it sad that in all the time on ATS, you and others like you, will only stand up for those within your narrow ideology and rarely for what it right, regardless of your personal or ideological standing.


I'm quite certain that what I'm about to say won't make even a small bit of difference to you, Beezzer.

I had grown to have a certain amount of respect for you, because you were consistent with your beliefs. Regardless of the fact that I think your beliefs are mostly insane (my opinion, my right) or that you're a manipulative little bun-bun when it comes to debate, you were apparently honest in your commitment to your positions.

This little holier-than-thou victim spiel that I quoted partially above absolutely destroyed any modicum of respect for you as a poster.

What a dishonest load of tripe!

None of us here want to take away anyone's freedom; we want to make sure that everyone has as much freedom as they can get.

None of us have irrational hatred for very much, but certainly not personal freedoms, hell, that's what we've been arguing for here.

You saw us all "switch" to support for the Knapps WHEN IT BECAME A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM NOT F-ING TAX CODE.

You know why? Because then, if they become a church, it IS A QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH WE ALL SUPPORT.

You are simply not that obtuse or dull-witted. You KNOW that this garbage diatribe that you dropped into this discussion like so much stinking offal is dishonest. And I personally have no respect for intentional and overt lies.

EDIT: I struck this last part because I fully acknowledge that it could be seen as a personal attack. However, the feeling remains.

TL;DR - You're a manipulative liar with absolutely no respect for the truth, this message board, or anyone here, in my opinion - and you deserve none in return.


edit on 10Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:04 -050014p1020141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I think credibility is a serious issue, and for the life of me I don't understand why (some) christians have a problem with just stating the facts as they are, rather than embellishing the story.

In this day & age, aint like ppl aren't going to find out eventually, right?

IIRC there's a bit of scripture that says "your sin will find you out".

I can't tell you the number of times a story I hear got me riled up, but when I go to flesh it out it aint nothing like I heard. (Subtitles & nuances tend to do that)

So, when something happens, tell the TRUTH, the whole truth, and nothing but otherwise why should anyone believe you?

You give the rest of us a bad name.

Geesh.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: schadenfreude
I think credibility is a serious issue, and for the life of me I don't understand why (some) christians have a problem with just stating the facts as they are, rather than embellishing the story.

In this day & age, aint like ppl aren't going to find out eventually, right?

IIRC there's a bit of scripture that says "your sin will find you out".

I can't tell you the number of times a story I hear got me riled up, but when I go to flesh it out it aint nothing like I heard. (Subtitles & nuances tend to do that)

So, when something happens, tell the TRUTH, the whole truth, and nothing but otherwise why should anyone believe you?

You give the rest of us a bad name.

Geesh.


In this case, the Heritage Group (Group?) started the story. Keep in mind that the Religious Right is a totalitarian political movement fronting as a religious movement. That explains everything. Most of the "members" of the Religious Right are clueless as to the real agenda.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Tangerine
We were forced to say this every morning in school
when I was a kid:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Rebel 5


Yes, but what point are you making by recalling that?


It's just one example. I was forced to say The Pledge of Allegiance
(before I even knew what the word allegiance meant) everyday,
and not only that, with reverence as though we were talking or
praying to the flag. It resembled a prayer actually to an
inanimate object which I think would fall under the definition
(at least among Christians) as idolatry, but my point is this:

My parents weren't religious while I was growing up and
I was never exposed to religion and yet I developed an
opinion that God must exist since the government feels
its so important us kids did this everyday and with reverence.

What the Pledge actually meant was never discussed and
if any of us kids questioned or expressed an opinion other
than the opinion which was being forced on us, that every
word in this Pledge is true and beyond question, that was
considered disrespect and we would get into serious trouble.

Therefore, even in public school, if I questioned if God existed
it was considered being disrespectful to the country.

It was also a form of brainwashing; repetition; especially if
you can get people themselves to do the repetitive act.

So, yes, in my opinion, we were forced to do something,
which was overt conditioning, which created an opinion
in myself (by being forced to say this everyday for years)
that there is a God, which eventually provoked my
intrigue and curiosity to find out more about this God,
which led me to ask my parents to take me to church and
later on ask them to put me in private religious school.

Therefore this being forced to say reverently in words and action
(no whispering, laughing, giggling, right hand over the heart and
not questioning anything about the pledge, forced an opinion on
me which led me wide open to being exposed to religion,
where (because of my age and lack of critical thought processes)
I was further indoctrinated and conditioned to develop even
more religious opinions.

Does that answer your question, because I have other examples
I could give you such as being taught the Theory of Evolution
in school and was told it was an absolute, unquestionable
scientific fact.

Good luck to whoever wins the bet, lol

Rebel 5


edit on 22-10-2014 by rebelv because: syntax

edit on 22-10-2014 by rebelv because: syntax



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The reasons why I choose to address the original story are twofold. First, because many people replied to that story in good faith that it was truthful and not one of them whatsoever understood the central issues raised. Second, many facts remained truthful throughout the developments, and my argument has remained relevant because of those.

The reason why I choose to address you is because, if my memory serves, you were the one that raised first the argument from the law of accommodation, which is, from my point of view, the only one that seems to hold water at a first glance, and therefore worth a reply. It does not hold any water because it is based on false assumptions that go against the known facts, as you will see below. In the end, the issue is about Freedom of Religion, and the law of accommodation is irrelevant, as are all other arguments raised against them, as well.

And as for those that are citing the Bible, stop. There is not a single argument that you can raise that has not been address for the last two thousand years, literally. You do not impress anyone anymore than a child would impress anyone by claiming that aliens must exist because he saw on Cartoon Network that Ben Tennyson has a gizmo that allows him to turn himself into many species of them. Furthermore, it is off-topic and this reason alone ought to be enough to make you stop doing it. You do nothing but invite wrath upon yourselves for doing it, although I understand that for some of you that might be your primary reason for doing it.

Let’s review the facts, shall we?

* I understand that there is a couple living in Idaho that owns a chapel about which they announce that they offer the service of weddings being performed there.

* I understand that there is a law in Idaho that states that a business cannot deny a service to a customer because of discrimination, including gender orientation.

Now, I believe those facts to be undisputed by all, except for a minor detail that one would complain on the way I wrote my first premise, and that I believe to be the central issue why everyone is reaching wrongful conclusions.

The service they offer for the chapel is a wedding and a minister to perform it, but nowhere does it say that the wedding has to be performed by them, specifically.

Here is where people are getting lost. Offering the service of a wedding and a minister to perform it is not the same thing as offering to perform you the service of a wedding.

And why does it render the law of accommodation irrelevant? Because the chapel clearly used to announce that it offered the service of performing weddings of secular nature, as well as of other religions, all of which are as likely to run afoul of Christian tenants as a gay wedding would, most notably by allowing the marriage of a divorced couple. Yet, the chapel was accommodating those. It was not claimed anywhere that the couple was unwilling to allow a gay wedding to be performed at their chapel. Their only claim was that they were unwilling to perform it themselves, something that, according to the city council, the couple could now be demanded to do, in spite of their religious convictions.

Hence, their reaction. Hence, the outrage and the claims of violation of Freedom of Religion.

Equality is being served. Justice is being served. Assuming they do not refuse the performing of gay weddings by other ministers at their chapel on the grounds that they are a gay couple, Accommodation is being served, as well. The only thing not being served here is their Freedom of Religion, because they can now be demanded to perform a wedding that goes against their religious convictions.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

Yep. It's been brought up many times in this thread. The couple could provide a wedding package that doesn't include a minister, meaning the wedding couple could bring their own officiator, or the chapel could hire a gay friendly officiator to preform the disgusting act for them.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

My goodness but you do have a staccato-eque, wound-tight writing style don't you?

Anyway. I'll cut right to the core of your argument:



Offering the service of a wedding and a minister to perform it is not the same thing as offering to perform you the service of a wedding.


I'm not sure if you are presenting this as a purely semantic argument or ... what exactly you are saying, but, a business offering services (weddings) to the public is subject to the laws of public accommodation ... oh here, allow me to let the attorney's for the Knapps explain it to you:



11. The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is a public accommodation under this ordinance because the Knapps open the chapel to the public and offer wedding services in exchange for a fee. According to the City, the Knapps and Hitching Post, LLC also deny privileges based on sexual orientation under this ordinance because they perform wedding ceremonies for opposite-sex couples and do not perform these services for same-sex couples


From the Federal Filing found here.

If your claim is that anyone is going to make the Knapps personally perform the service or go to jail, you're simply mistaken.

If the Hitching Post LLC won't perform the service, then as the Principals, the Knapps are responsible.

They have options (which they are pursuing).

Hope that clears it up!



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join