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

originally posted by: Tangerine

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.

Man whatever they're putting in our water and our food to keep us at eachother's throats is working like a charm. Keep in mind that the Satanic Left is a totalitarian political movement fronting as a Gay Rights movement. That explains everything. Most of the "members" of the Satanic Left are clueless as to the real agenda.

I wonder if anyone has any evidence (real evidence, as in facts, proof, etc.) for whatever the "Satanic Left" is and exactly how it is operating as a "totalitarian political movement fronting as a Gay Right movement."

Which Gay Rights movement is it fronting as?

Does it have a website?

Are they Laveyan Satanists, Theistic Satanists, Luciferans, Setians, or just good ol' run of the mill frustrated Christians?

I've searched and I can't find anything aside from a few personal websites which I can link if anyone is interested.

Much appreciated.

The latest.....

Idaho Governor Asks Appeals Court To Reconsider Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter tells the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that its ruling in favor of marriage equality could cause significant harms, “especially [to] the children of heterosexuals.”

WASHINGTON — Idaho Gov. Butch Otter on Tuesday night asked the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vote to reconsider the recent decision of a three-judge panel of the circuit that Idaho’s ban on same-sex couples marriages is unconstitutional.

“This issue is also exceptional because, as a practical matter, redefining marriage by judicial fiat will undermine these social norms and likely lead to significant long-term harms to Idaho and its citizens, especially the children of heterosexuals,” lawyers for Otter wrote in requesting en banc, or a full court, review of the decision.

Supreme Court Eventually?

a reply to: xuenchen

Think of the children!!!!


That line has been overused and abused for far too many times and for far too long IMO.

How are the children of heterosexuals going to be harmed by people getting married, exactly?

It seems like, if you wanted to protect children of heterosexuals, you'd do something about heterosexual divorce rates (which are around 50% last time I checked.)

Broken homes seem like they would hurt kids more than happy ones, right?

Double-shot.

a reply to: xuenchen

These asshats really need a new play book. They always bring out "It will harm the children" BS when they don't have an actual logical argument.

They also attacked the decision as “even worse policy,” writing that it “creat[es] enormous risks to Idaho’s present and future children—including serious risks of increased fatherlessness, reduced parental financial and emotional support, increased crime, and greater psychological problems—with their attendant costs to Idaho and its citizens.”

Wow, ya that's fascinating. Gee, I wonder if they can actually back up any one of those claims?? My guess is no, but that of course doesn't matter in today's world. As long as you can claim any ridiculous accusation and tie it to children actually showing credibility for those claims seems to fly out the window.

Allowing Gay couples to Marry will cause Fatherlessness??? Really??? I so want to hear the rationale for that one.

So allowing a couple to marry that is Gay, thereby treating them like every other couple who's married is now going to harm the children. That's amazing how treating everyone equally is bad all of a sudden. Well, hell, if we want to save some children we had better get women out of Business and back into the Kitchens then. Put the Blacks back in the cotton fields, Restrict Voting to White Male Land owners and get those damn Gay's back in the closet once and for all!!! All this progress toward "Equality Under the Law" is going to kill all the babies!!!

originally posted by: rebelv

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

I was wondering how this is relevant to the topic of this thread.

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.

.

If they considered facts to be important they wouldn't be Christians.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I never stated "your kind", my use of the pronoun was inclusive and related to the subject of the thread, ie a same-sex couple. Stop throwing words in my mouth. I am very objective and look at this from a logical and legal perspective.

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

unconstitutional based on "Separation of Church and State", which the atheists are so fondly using to tear out any resemblance of God from our public schools, etc...

a reply to: ownbestenemy

No sidestepping.

Are you stating that the Wedding Chapel Across the Street That Does Marry Gays is "just as good" as the one that doesn't?

Or not?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not mistaken. My claim is that, yes, the situation is that the Knapps have to personally perform the ceremony or go to jail. This is exactly what is written in the article. This is exactly what they claimed that they asked the city council and was confirmed to them to be true. The law of accommodation was never relevant because nothing in the evidence presented so far suggests that they would refuse to hold a wedding for a gay couple on the grounds that they were gay.

And as for how I write, the blame lies entirely on the anti-theist crowd. I am forced to write in a way to leave as little room for them to misrepresent my position as possible, lest they use any ambiguity to build a straw man to attack instead of my actual position.

Yes, I am aware that many theists do the same but I don't often debate them.

a reply to: Leahn

Yes, so often we are "forced" to do so many things by other people.

The OP is discredited. The Knapps are discredited. The attorneys representing them are discredited.

At this point, I'm not even sure what article or what issue you're reading about, because this comment of yours:

The law of accommodation was never relevant because nothing in the evidence presented so far suggests that they would refuse to hold a wedding for a gay couple on the grounds that they were gay.

... is just ... utterly ridiculous. In both the letter and the spirit of what you're saying. I imagine you think you're being sly by inserting the word gay in there, but if they wouldn't do it because the individuals were gay, they wouldn't do it because they were the same sex, which is sex discrimination, also illegal.

If that kind of reality-disconnection is common in your posts, I can see why you have problems with the average "non-theist."

We're pretty much a reality-based folk.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Allowing Gay couples to Marry will cause Fatherlessness??? Really??? I so want to hear the rationale for that one.

Me, too. I'm TOTALLY confused as to how marriage is going to cause fatherlessness... Too bad he didn't expound on that. LOL And if it does, I guess it causes motherlessness as well? Are these people aware that gay couples don't have "accidental births"? If a gay couple wants a kid, they have to proactively go about it, as simply having sex is not going to result in unwanted children (or children at all), as it does with straight couples... It spins my brain around to try to figure this rationale.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
I am unsure why the defendants in this case (the same-sex couple) are wanting to damage fellow citizen's for their beliefs.

There is no couple involved. No one has taken any action except the owners of the Hitching Post. They are suing the city to prevent having to marry ss couples. No one is suing them. So far, the couples that have been turned away have done exactly as you suggest. Gone somewhere else.

But a spokesman with the city of Coeur d'Alene said they have yet to receive a single complaint against the Hitching Post and currently have no reason to seek any action against the business.
...
"There's no merit," says city spokesman, Keith Erickson. "The hitching post is excluded from the ordinance anyway. So we're just politely asking for them to dismiss the lawsuit."

Source

a reply to: MarkJS

Read the thread. Your assumptions are incorrect. The government has said no such thing.

originally posted by: Leahn
The law of accommodation was never relevant because nothing in the evidence presented so far suggests that they would refuse to hold a wedding for a gay couple on the grounds that they were gay.

They admit they have turned down gay couples.

Here are some great links so people can understand what's going on:

Letter From City of Coeur d'Alene to Knapps Legal team (ADF)

While I appreciate your clients' concerns, it appears from the documents filed in their lawsuit that they are claiming to be operating a "religious corporation". If they are truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City's anti-discrimination ordinance...
...
On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.

So, if they operate as a non-profit religious corporation, they're exempt. If they make a profit, they're subject to the law, just like every other for-profit public accommodation. We have yet to see if they are planning a change to their business model to a non-profit.

As regards the Knapps being ministers, that doesn't get them off the hook. They are business owners. Their additional occupations are not relevant.

Idaho Hitching Post Case

Hitchi ng Post Website Changes

This is a very fascinating case and it will be interesting to see what happens.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Genetic arguments and ad-hominem attacks have no place in a rational discussion. I have been nothing but civil so far and your rampant offensive behavior is unwarranted.

I finished reading the 63-page court case.

The Knapps have refused a multitude of weddings on the grounds that they conflicted with their religious convictions. They have consistently denied service on those grounds, same-sex marriage being a subset of the refusals. Claiming that discrimination against gays couples is happening implies that gays are being singled out when, in fact, the same criteria is being applied equally to everyone.

However, as I said before, this is irrelevant. The Knapps are not fighting the law because of the reality-disconnected situation presented by the reality-disconnected item 310 on reality-disconnected page 42 of the reality-disconnected court case file that you linked.

Understand, the city is not demanding that the Knapps allow gay weddings at their chapel. The city is demanding that the Knapps perform themselves the wedding if they are so requested by a gay couple, in spite of their religious convictions.

And the reason why anti-theists have trouble debating me is because they rarely reply to what I write. They will either build a straw man or they will reply to what they believe they would have written if they were in my position. But I am an INFJ. I am weird. I will simply restate my position until they give up trying to make me defend myself from the straw man that they created. But I digress.