Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail

Told ya' so. . . . . .

Welcome to America.

Happy Independence Day.

Please leave all freedoms at the door.

a reply to: rationalconsumer

Isn't that just another form of discrimination?


What would be your reasoning to deny a pastor such a privilege?

As always once you look into these things you get a different story. This is a case the involves only 2 people who claim to be ministers. They run a for profit wedding chapel that is registered as a business not a church. To be a for profit that wants to claim exemption from the law they would have to be organized primarily or exclusively for religious purposes. And since the perform civil and ceremonies from other religions they do not meet that exemption. If they were to exclusively offer services for a particular denomination and the business was built around that as a religious corporation they would be exempt.

So if they as a for profit business want discriminate based on religion they would have to get rid of civil ceremonies and other religion ceremonies and build the business around religion. Now, you know, and knowing is half the battle.

And that is a double post.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Spin or commentary? Should have at least mentioned that this news is actually from last year after the Ninth circuit court overturned the Idaho ban on gay marriage.- see here.

This source says the article is a mixture of fact and fiction.

I want to apologize for jumping the gun on this one. I couldn't have mentioned it because I didn't realize it. This article just showed up on my news feed (likely due to the key words related to more recent news stories). I've learned my lesson about taking a few more steps to check, even for more reputable sources like the WT.

Thank you for pointing this out.

a reply to: Lysergic

You know my point...

Intellectual dishonesty will not get you out of answering my question.

Why would there be gay weddings at Mosques, when there is no such thing as a gay Muslim, & when Mosques cater to Muslim weddings?



More over, what was your point?
Other than star fishing?

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: rationalconsumer

As a gay man I say "NO....NO....NO". They better not face ANY government backlash or we lost the fight........

There is definitely the possibility it will go precisely in that direction. That social pendulum has a bad habit of swinging too far in the other direction, with few ever realizing it outside of hindsight (if that).

Perhaps this truly is all leading to a more tolerant society and world, but it can also just lead to "switching places" of which groups are acceptable to victimize. That part is up to us, collectively, even with social/media manipulation in play. I do believe we can learn how to live together, but have sincere doubts legislation itself will lead there. In situations like these, it will end up embedding the divisive mentality further.

a reply to: HolgerTheDane2

But if you start making money part of the game, then you also make coercion part of the game.

So the idea that you don't favor coercion but DO favor making money part of the game is at odds.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Lysergic

Depends what you mean by Christian...

If you mean a follower of Christ's teaching, who knows...

If you mean those who respect the entire Holy Bible...

Exactly zero gay Christians.

It depends on what you mean by gay then.

a reply to: ketsuko

How so?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No, it is not discrimination, because other folks that have a "problem" with lgbtq folks shouldn't be allowed to sign state-recognized documents for that reason (e.g. clerks).

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ketsuko

How so?

Being gay, and then adding on the Christian doesn't negate the gay. Being Christian is not a vaccine to being gay.

originally posted by: Lysergic
How many gay weddings are being held at mosques these days?

This wasn't going to be held in a church but rather a for profit wedding chapel.

The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.

If the weddings were taking place in a legitimate church then it would be a violation of freedom of religion but when you turn it into a business then you give up the freedom of religion protection to provide services to the public. This is no different than a restaurant refusing to provide their services to people because they are gay.

a reply to: rationalconsumer

That wasn't a reason, that was an opinion.


Furthermore, you shouldn't answer my "how so" completely out of context.


And while it isn't a "vaccine", it is an antithetical approach.
A pure definition of cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: beezzer
Told ya' so. . . . . .

Welcome to America.

Happy Independence Day.

Please leave all freedoms at the door.

Sorry but it's not time to play drama queen yet. No one is forcing a church to marry people go read the article it's a for profit business not a church.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Why would it be any different for Church to do so?

Selective reasoning?

Star fishing?

Ha. I just say what people are really thinking and don't gaf if it's PC.


Do try harder if you're going to verbally joust me.
Star fishing.... LOL

a reply to: Lysergic

But people are already well aware of that...

So what good does it do for discussion to bring up Mosques, after than to garner a right wing back patting.


"LoL" is your see-through attempt at drifting the discussion from a for-profit organisation to a constitutionally protected religious establishment.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: rationalconsumer

That wasn't a reason, that was an opinion.


Furthermore, you shouldn't answer my "how so" completely out of context.


And while it isn't a "vaccine", it is an antithetical approach.
A pure definition of cognitive dissonance.

To say that being Christian is antithetical to being gay--like there's a single definition of being Christian and it's the definition you are espousing--is a dissonance with reality. I don't understand how you can say that and live in the same world as we do, since I know people who call themselves Christian, and that other people call Christian, and that are gay.

originally posted by: ShayneJUK
i was also under the impression that the state has no jurisdiction regarding religion and church law trumps state every time? both here in UK and in the US a cleric of any faith can and must carry out the doctrine of their faith
and providing its not breaking criminal law the state has no say in the matter period.

the city,council, state, congress, house, parliament or whoever has no right to tell a cleric what service he may
or may not perform in his place of worship.

Actually , it is up to each State to define marriage .

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Lysergic
But it socially acceptable to hate on Christian beliefs while holding other religions in some sort of special place.

The LOL was you proving my point.