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.

 

Gay marriage and business problem

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

So, churches have to make negative business decisions based on your own negative beliefs?

That's really awful. So, you think it's fine for churches to rent to the general public (any and all comers), and PROFIT from doing so, but you think the church should be able to pick and choose which members of the Public that may do business?

Wait, of course you do.

Nevermind.

Didn't Jesus say something about using the House of God for financial gain?

Oh wait, silly me again. When have some modern Christians cared about what Jesus actually said? Pfft.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The churches I know of don't make a profit,
there are cleaning crew bills
there are set up crew bills
(this is normally not done by the people who "rent" the church)
there are utility bills

It costs churches to let people use the building.
Thus it is really a fee, versus rent

But you have a point, all churches should stop immediately "renting" their
facilities out to everyone. That is what I was saying.

So on this I agree with you, no one but active members
who pay the bills for the church on a regular basis
should be allowed to use the church building for
purposes that are not church services or church
wide events.

This will solve multiple problems.
The hypocrisy problem you mentioned.
And at the same time will eliminate the ability
of non-members to sue because they can not "rent" "pay the fee to use" the facilities.

All in all, a good thing and a win win all the way around,
if only active members
(who are already paying for utilities, clean up crews, set up crews, building maintenance, etc)
can use the facilities for non church wide events
then no one can be discriminated against, when it comes to facility usage.

So I agree with you, no church should allow non-members to utilize the facilities for non-church wide events of any kind.

This is what many lawyers are advising churches to do.

Just glad my daughter got married in the gorgeous, stunningly beautiful, antique chapel that was moved to church grounds, before lawyers began to advise churches to disallow anyone outside the congregations from "renting" the churches. But I understand and support the lawyers advice and the need for the churches to protect themselves.

But that is how our world is today,
one must constantly be on guard
and protect oneself against
those who would seek to
use totalitarian methods to force
people to agree with them at any cost.

You will reply, Christians were doing that, so it's ok for "us" to do it now. Really,
two wrongs make a right. Revenge changes people's minds and hearts?
Attempting to force others to be nice to you and to think you are right works?
That is totalitarianism.

I do not think two wrongs make a right.
I do not think that hateful emails and death threats will make people like you.
I do not think that hunting for people to sue to make your point, makes anyone respect you.
If you do, you are wrong. It only creates more hatred and the circle goes round and round.
edit on 1Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0500pm70807pmk083 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

And I thought used-car salesmen and politicians could spin ...

... it isn't really "rent" its a "use fee" ...

Whoo boy.

Again, please provide any information you have on "non-members" suing any religious facility in order to use it!

Yeah, destroying marriage and shutting down rental programs for church venues is one way to avoid dealing with simple human rights.

Another answer is to just get over it. Even if being homosexual is a sin ... no church ANYWHERE has even polled their prospective customers to find out if they're liars, back-biters, thieves, or most of the time, even if they've been DIVORCED which The MAN HIMSELF said was forbidden.

That's the same MAN who never once said anything about same-sex relationships, when they would have been all around Him in Roman-occupied Judea. He did say a lot about not judging others though, and something about loving someone... can't remember now ...

In fact, He healed the young lover of a Centurion, and the only thing he said was to congratulate the Roman on his faith.

/shrug

Perhaps Christians should follow Christ's example for once?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Are you saying The Church doesn't make Profits?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

Are you saying The Church doesn't make Profits?



No Darth, they don't.

Here is a generalisation across the different branches of the Church - each varies a little, but the end idea is supposed to be the same.

Money is collected via tithing (giving 10% of your income to them) or by general unrestricted donation (i.i give what you feel you can afford to the Lord which can be nothing or lots without fear of judgement)

Said money goes into accounts for paying the Priest / Preacher / Pastor - most are paid quite modestly, only Stupid TV evangelicals live the millionaire lifestyle. The rest (as in great majority) goes toward upkeep of the building and then community charities. Churches that have heirachy ie Bishops etc also send some money into a diocese fund which then funds said heirachy, larger charities and schools etc.

The money is not supposed to be used for personal gain or for the purposes of making more money, it is just a means to an end for doing good. (Theoretically anyway)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Would you say that "upkeep of the building" includes cups and service platters of gold, gold and silver fixtures (candlesticks, etc) gold inlay on paneling, etc. etc.?

Or is the Roman Catholic church in the same boat as Evangelicals?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Thanks, it was a serious question.. i openly admit to be ignorant on Religion



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: markosity1973

Would you say that "upkeep of the building" includes cups and service platters of gold, gold and silver fixtures (candlesticks, etc) gold inlay on paneling, etc. etc.?

Or is the Roman Catholic church in the same boat as Evangelicals?


Yes it does.

Don't shoot the messenger here. I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out the model they are run on.

One thing to remember about said decadent fixtures; there was a time when a church represented the glory of god. This meant the grander the better because it was meant to be built for him.

Once again, don't shoot the messenger



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Oh, I'm not going to shoot you. I'm giving you credit for advancing the idea that as non-profit organizations (basically), churches are SUPPOSED to use what they take in to cover basic expenses of the building and the staff ... and use the rest on public service and charity.

That last part is the justification for tax-exempt status on the part of churches.

I'm just saying that, given the facts of 20 lbs of gold on the altar and 65 million dollar jets, some but not all of the churches not only don't follow that basic pattern, but are criminally flaunting it in the public's face.

Remember, don't kill the messenger.

edit on 16Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:35:36 -050015p042015766 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're correct in that the ideology has become polluted. Wherever humans are involved and especially where there is money and / or power there will be corruption.

I think it's unfair to single out Catholicism on its own though. A Google Search will reveal financial infidelities plague all churches and indeed all religions.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're correct in that the ideology has become polluted. Wherever humans are involved and especially where there is money and / or power there will be corruption.

I think it's unfair to single out Catholicism on its own though. A Google Search will reveal financial infidelities plague all churches and indeed all religions.


Fair enough. I don't think humans have become polluted, I think we're how we've always been, with a few technological advances to help us.

I shouldn't single out Catholicism, but you singled out Evangelicals on TV?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: grandmakdw

And I thought used-car salesmen and politicians could spin ...

... it isn't really "rent" its a "use fee" ...

Whoo boy.

Again, please provide any information you have on "non-members" suing any religious facility in order to use it!

Yeah, destroying marriage and shutting down rental programs for church venues is one way to avoid dealing with simple human rights.

Another answer is to just get over it. Even if being homosexual is a sin ... no church ANYWHERE has even polled their prospective customers to find out if they're liars, back-biters, thieves, or most of the time, even if they've been DIVORCED which The MAN HIMSELF said was forbidden.

That's the same MAN who never once said anything about same-sex relationships, when they would have been all around Him in Roman-occupied Judea. He did say a lot about not judging others though, and something about loving someone... can't remember now ...

In fact, He healed the young lover of a Centurion, and the only thing he said was to congratulate the Roman on his faith.

/shrug

Perhaps Christians should follow Christ's example for once?


Wait

Didn't I agree with you that churches should not "rent" out for a "fee" because it is unseemly?
Yet you are upset I agreed with you on that point. Huh?

Didn't LGBT just win the gay marriage debate for the entire US?

Why are you still angry?

LGBT has also won every civil lawsuit against bakeries, florists, and photographers.

But you are still angry?

Doesn't make sense, LBGT won,
instead of being happy and allowing people to live and let live,
you get angry and attack.
What is the purpose?
What does hostility and anger toward others accomplish?

I think it accomplishes several things:
to increase anger and hostility on "the other side"
because you still attack and call names after winning;
to make "the others" feel that nothing will make you happy,
that you will continue to be bitter and attack
because it is revenge and payback for how you feel you were treated.

Revenge is a nasty thing,
it creates more problems than it solves,
it deepens divides
it increases distrust and dislike between groups.

Why should you be angry that churches
are no longer going to let non-members
use the church for non-church functions?

Our church owns the largest venue in our town,
but has never allowed anyone to use it unless
everyone in the congregation is allowed to attend.
No one can use it for private reasons.
Why would that make you angry?

Our chapel will now be restricted
to members only, the "fee" was quite small,
but because of the bitterness and hatred
that one sees demonstrated by people in posts like yours,
the church is afraid to continue to allow
non-members to use the chapel.
But that will make you angry,
even if the decision is non-discriminatory,
no one regardless of who they are,
if they haven't been active participating members
will no longer be able to use any room
in the church for private reasons,
unless they subsequently invite all church members to attend.

But, this too will most likely set you off
and it will if your written history on ATS
is any indication; you will get angry, and why?
I think it is because it might deny someone
the opportunity to "get even" and
"get revenge" on Christians.

For one more time:
I believe personally in live and let live.
Gay, gay marriage, fine, but let me live in peace.
I also believe that if someone is likely to
attack me, it is my duty to go on the defensive
and to protect myself and those I love and care for,
which includes my church.




edit on 8Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:30:48 -0500pm70807pmk083 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ceeker63

Why don't you list the specific examples you're talking about and the big "pay-outs" each was supposed to provide?

For starters.


135 k payout for emotional damage.
www.reuters.com...



Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
One thing to remember about said decadent fixtures; there was a time when a church represented the glory of god. This meant the grander the better because it was meant to be built for him.

Once again, don't shoot the messenger


The grander the better is what many have done, but just about every religion says you should be humble and not flaunt wealth. Actually, they say if you have enough wealth to flaunt you should be giving back to society. A 20 pound golden altar to me represents placing material wealth above your faith.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Ceeker63

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

-Frédéric Bastiat





posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ceeker63

Why don't you list the specific examples you're talking about and the big "pay-outs" each was supposed to provide?

For starters.


135 k payout for emotional damage.
www.reuters.com...



Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering


Oh yeah, Reuters is unbiased.

You do know it was the state who was first to sue, right?

They violated a state law.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The problem is that the businesses getting sued are using religion as a reason.

What would you say with this: A business owner refused service to a group of patrons, arguing that the requirements put forth by the government exceeded the authority of the legislatures over commerce. In addition, the owner would maintain that the regulations would violate his 5th amendment right to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. The owner would also contend that the legislature would put him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to perform said services to the groups he did not want to and thus violating his 13th amendment rights. Further also adding in that to service said group would also violate his 1st amendment rights, freedom of religion, as such is against his religious beliefs.

Now think on this, everyone of those points have been used before and ultimately was seen in a 1964's case: The Heart of Atlanta, V. United States.

In that case the justices were very clear, a business or organization that is considered public accommodation, can not use personal reasoning, like religion as an excuse to deny services. It was decided by all justices ruling against the business.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ceeker63

Why don't you list the specific examples you're talking about and the big "pay-outs" each was supposed to provide?

For starters.


135 k payout for emotional damage.
www.reuters.com...



Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering


Oh yeah, Reuters is unbiased.

You do know it was the state who was first to sue, right?

They violated a state law.


Really? This source Lefty enough? Also, they are not fining business assets. They are going directly for their personal assets. You know, like their house and such.

Bloodsuckers. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are not POS scheming people. Look at that BS complaint.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



Oregon Bakery Must Pay For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Lesbian Couple
A judge had ordered owners Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Crye and another $60,000 to her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer.


www.scribd.com...


In order to reach $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.

One of the women, whose name was redacted to protect her privacy, listed 88 symptoms as grounds for compensation.

The other, whose name was also redacted, listed 90.

Examples of symptoms include “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

edit on 8-7-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ceeker63

Why don't you list the specific examples you're talking about and the big "pay-outs" each was supposed to provide?

For starters.


135 k payout for emotional damage.
www.reuters.com...



Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering


Oh yeah, Reuters is unbiased.

You do know it was the state who was first to sue, right?

They violated a state law.


Really? This source Lefty enough?

www.huffingtonpost.com...



Oregon Bakery Must Pay For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Lesbian Couple
A judge had ordered owners Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Crye and another $60,000 to her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer.


Good. That's awesome. I hope they have to pay the state too.

This bakery had plenty of chances to abide by state law.

It is the Bakery that chose to fight. They lost. Their fault.


edit on 8-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I know a couple of business owners who are no longer going to offer insurance to spouses of employees on their next renewal. I also know someone who works in a pretty decent sized provider for small and medium sized business employee insurance, and asked him if he's seen this yet. The answer was yes, not so much for those that did mid year renewals but he's already had some benefits managers/biz owners whose benefit year comes around in 3rd and 4th Q ask for only Employee and Employee +children quotes and to not even bother with an employee +family ( which includes spouse and children). I asked if it was all the SCOTUS ruling or was it a mix of ACA and the ruling. He said some ACA impact but most who stopped covering spouses did so at the launch of the ACA when some notable large companies did the same.

I've been pretty ambivalent over the whole thing, but I did expect some blowback similar to this. I fully expect to see a continued assault on any who disagree to include churches that don't perform such ceremonies. If i were to bet on it, I bet we'll see some lawsuit against an Evangelical church that doesn't rent facillities for same sex weddings before Fall if it even takes that long. The legal advice given to churches and ministers mentioned earlier seems pretty sound to me.







 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join