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: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

John 13:34 and 13:35:


A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."


Leviticus 19:18:


"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."


Romans 12:10:


Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.


1 John 3:23:


And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.


I am having one Hell of a time finding any scriptures where Christ taught exclusion. Under Mosaic law there were several, but if one is Christian then one believes that Christ washed away the burden of the old law - that no man could achieve or live up to.




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

No, they won't. People, regardless of how much they hate religion will not tolerate oppression of anyone, you might be willing to accept oppression of Gays but those of us who aren't won't tolerate it against anyone.




I never said I was for oppression of gays.

I didn't realize you were for suppression of religion.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

I worked for a couple who owned a bar and a restaurant. They were Mormons and didn't even touch coffee or cola. Religious people need to choose what businesses offend their senses and stay away from them.

It appears that these people have invested in the wrong business for them. They either need to hire someone who isn't religiously offended to officiate gay weddings or they need to get out the "hitchin" business.


Those people invested in that business long before the state stuck its nose in. How can you say they "got into the wrong business"?

I guess now the implication is that no one of any religious conviction better be in business anywhere because it's inconvenient for anyone who dislikes religion to have to deal with the idea that some people have differing standards, and rather than live and let live because there are plenty of other people who do match your standards, you prefer to force everyone else to conform to you with the heavy hand of the law.

If what was done in the past was wrong, what you are attempting to do now is equally wrong. It isn't freedom; it's simply revenge.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Granting the legal recognition of marriage to gay couples isn't attacking anyone's religion.



6 months in jail for every day you refuse to marry 2 gay people isn't an attack?


Gays have the right to NOT be discriminated against. If that is the penalty for violating a person's civil rights, then so be it.



I see. Gays have the right to have their way, but others do not.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
In the end all are judged the same. By the entire content of their life, in the blink of an eye. Believe YOU can pass judgement today?

Government should not impose Its moral will on people, nor should religions impose their moral will on people. No one of this world is in a position to judge and/or condemn any person.

edit on 19-10-2014 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

No. Forgive me, I'm not understanding your point. Can you elaborate?



originally posted by: windword

I worked for a couple who owned a bar and a restaurant. They were Mormons and didn't even touch coffee or cola. Religious people need to choose what businesses offend their senses and stay away from them.

It appears that these people have invested in the wrong business for them. They either need to hire someone who isn't religiously offended to officiate gay weddings or they need to get out the "hitchin" business.



originally posted by: Kali74

Nor should you, if that's what you believe... just don't open a business offering marriage ceremonies to the public.




edit on 19-10-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

Nor should you, if that's what you believe... just don't open a business offering marriage ceremonies to the public.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I'm not for suppression of anyone for any reason, you clearly are okay with Gays being suppressed by business owners though.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide


But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10: 6-9



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
When it is done on churches, when government starts dictating to religions, I wonder if you all will still support government then.

Many of you appear fine with this simply because of their tax status.

If churches had their tax status changed, would you still cheer government imposition?


Government can and should "dictate" to religious institutions, for a few examples:

1. Safe building codes
2. Sanitary measures in kitchens that are used to serve food to the public (Fellowship Halls, et. al.)
3. Occupancy capacity (fire codes)

Etc.

Not a single thing there that contravenes anyones religion, religious beliefs, religious practices, rituals, hoodoos, etc.

The Constitution does not promise that churches or religions or individuals practicing a religion can just do as they wish and hide behind the First Amendment.

There is a State law in Idaho that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There is a State law in Idaho that allows for marriage equality between members of the same sex.

The State is enforcing the law equitably.

Are you against States' Rights Beezer?

And further, If they did not enforce these laws, they would be showing favoritism to a religion, ie. establishing a religion, and/or to individuals because of their "special status" (ordained ministers) in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Are you in favor of the State treating those with "special status" differently under the law, Beezer?

Are you asking Idaho to trample the Constitution, Beezer?

edit on 21Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:01:12 -050014p0920141066 by Gryphon66 because: Clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

That's my issue.

I see so many here jumping for the side of government.

I have serious doubts that many here would support religion if government started imposing sanctions.


You mistake jumping for the side of government for advocating equal protection under the law. Government should ensure equal protection, at least. It is their job.
edit on 10/19/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: ketsuko



Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.




Ouch...never seen that particular line.

That is quite profound, is it not?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

And when equality trumps liberty?

What happens when equality becomes so important that it forces you to violate your conscience? What if it's decided we must eventually have a state religion of some sort. No, I am not saying Christianity, but simply a state religion. What if you were forced by law to participate in it as was everyone else no matter what their former beliefs were? You understand this is all done in the interests of equality.

And what if Michelle O's lunch rules are extended to all, everywhere? In the interests of equality. No matter what your personal dietary requirements might be.


edit on 19-10-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

Too true.

If we allow the government to dictate what a religion can believe, then I think it's time for a reboot.


Um, if you think that is the reason for a reboot...

...surely the fact the religion exists is the reason in the first place. I'm not saying I agree with forcing people to perform rites they disagree with at all - just that their reasons are the reason we need the reboot.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

A lot of things like that were said during reconstruction and Jim Crow.

If your conscience is judgmental of others I would suggest that the issue lay within you and not without.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: sheepslayer247

And when equality trumps liberty?

What happens when equality becomes so important that it forces you to violate your conscience? What if it's decided we must eventually have a state religion of some sort. No, I am not saying Christianity, but simply a state religion. What if you were forced by law to participate in it as was everyone else no matter what their former beliefs were? You understand this is all done in the interests of equality.

And what if Michelle O's lunch rules are extended to all, everywhere? In the interests of equality. No matter what your personal dietary requirements might be.



A state religion is unconstitutional and violates equal protection. It mandates that all beliefs be given the same rights as any other.

As far as Michelle's lunch rules....I don't see dietary equality in the constitution. Irrelevant point.
edit on 10/19/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/19/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What if this couple owned an apartment building. Do you think that, because of their prejudices, they should be able to decline a gay couple from sinning in their apartment?

And, the government didn't stick it's nose in marriage, it is rectifying a wrong, by allowing marriage licenses to be issued to gay couples. The Knapps business offers the service of handling marriage licenses issued by the state. They can't decide which ones to honor and which ones to reject.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I see. Gays have the right to have their way, but others do not.


No. Gays are not allowed to illegally discriminate either.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
There should be provision in law that states an ordained minister can only marry a person who is officially a member of whatever cult they are ordained into.

Problem solved.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join