Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Homos to force Ministers to perform homo marriage

Like Al Sharpton, ordained at 10yrs old? It would be
racist not to have a little "color" in this thread.

I don't see how this could survive a court challenge.

Due to local laws regarding public accommodation.

No. Try the parts where the "ministers" are for-profit swindlers and interstate commerce. They are a business, not a religious entity.

Then again, that gets way mixed up these days especially with the "most Holy" Baptists.

It ain't out of control it has just begun, it's going to be much worse than this as the bestiality folks and the man boy love freaks will be demanding their day in the sun soon.

Isn't this what the old testament haters want?

It will be an issue when they try to make a Catholic church perform a ceremony. This is like saying the drive-through place in Vegas can't refuse to marry black people.

This whole "public accommodation" stuff is just made-up BS that has no basis and is in fact totally unconstitutional on several levels.
One, it violates the human right of freedom of association. This right is recognized in the 1st Amendment.
Secondly, it violates the human right of free practice of religion which is also recognized in the 1st Amendment.

no it is not. Refusing on the basis of race, does not rise to the definition of religious reasons.

Quite so! The whole thing of govt controlling private property because it is a place of public accommodation was a lawless "taking" by govt, long ago. I suspect it is a perversion of the commerce clause. At any rate it is a huge govt power grab.

I get a kick out of those who say a church wedding should be free. Churches must be built for free and heated for free and have free custodial services and maintenance. Sheeesh. The strongest advocates probably have never dropped a nickel into the plate, if my experience is, in any way, prognosticative.

They haven't lost any "human rights"

They just can't force their beliefs on anyone else while offering services to the public for money

Lose the rhetoric and focus on reality

How is being forced to participate in things that violate your conscience not a loss of human rights?

Just perform the wedding,complete with all the bible passages that condemn homosexuality.

If you are forced to play the game, make sure that no one else wants to play when you are done.

They knew when they started the business what the laws were

They CHOSE to do it anyway. They were not "forced" to do anything

They haven't lost any human rights, since they can choose not to offer services for money

This really isn't rocket science
It's been the law for 50 years

BS on that. I was here fifty years ago and no one was forced to participate in homo promotion.

A bad law of duration is still a bad law. The homo law is new.

What is happening to them now is definitely limiting their liberty.

To say they can do something else is just like having your house confiscated and being told you can live somewhere else. What's the big deal?

No way in hell would a real minister be forced.

It's clear their main goal is that they want to poke those ministers in the eye. They could easily go to a justice of the peace or a judge and get married. The fact that the state sanctions homosexual marriage means exactly what opponents were ridiculed for saying -- that those who object on religious grounds will be forced to marry homosexual couples. We're only in the early battles of the larger war.

Steve.

FreeMe, you're DEAD on with this one. I am a pastor in the ELCA and this wedding situation is going to get really sticky if someone (or someones) decide to make a stink of it following the recent SCOTUS non-decision. First, this "wedding chapel" is NOT a congregation. Wedding ceremonies occur as a part of the regular worship life of a congregation and the pastor or pastors called to that congregation preside over the marriage. Unfortunately, this means that when I preside at a marriage, I am simultaneously acting as an officer of the state and a called and ordained minister of Word and Sacrament (marriage is not a sacrament in the Lutheran church, BTW) I don't do weddings for profit - I do them because we as the Church of God bless the love and relationship that has grown between two people as a reflection of God's love for the world in and through Jesus Christ. Do I regularly receive honorariums for weddings? Yes - but not required. For non-members I charge a set fee for premarital counseling services. The honorarium and any costs associated with musicians in the service are minute compared to the wedding industry that FreeMe is talking about. My ideal wedding service is one that occurs on Sunday morning during the regularly scheduled worship service and takes about 5-10 extra minutes within the service. It is public and includes celebration of Holy Communion. I've never gotten to preside at such a service, but I always suggest it. What we have in mind with a wedding now days is actually modeled on a Victorian court wedding, no matter if it is in a church building or some other venue. The church doesn't need to be an official part of this - it is the one place where the idea of separation of Church and State has miserably failed in our nation. Unfortunately it is the reality in which we live right now.

Sam Adams said, "put your enemy in the wrong and keep him there..." and in context he was talking about using the pen and press to discredit the tyrant.

Why agree or make arguments of any kind to support these tyrannical sodomite nazis? Why split any hairs whatsoever? Twenty years ago no one was debating governmeent getting out of the marriage business. To make that argument is to show your cowardice in the face of the enemy. Unless 20 years ago you had a sincere gripe about issuing marriage licenses. But now everyone wants to dodge the tussle with these sodomite nazis.

Just say NO.

The civil rights law back in 64? or whenever exactly it was that forced the public accomodation provisions on the American people was tyranny altogether then just as it is now.

Yes, law abiding citizens can vote.
NO, not everyone is welcome at my greasy spoon diner; for whatever reason whatsoever I determine I don't want to serve you, from the way you part your hair to your political opinions to your religion or your race- I own the diner- I determine who comes in the door. That is called owning private property. If not, then the federal goverenment owns my greasy spoon diner, not me. 1964 made all people who own movie theaters, diners, hotels etc, slaves of the Federal government.

I invoke the Declaration of Independence in this issue. And everyone who has studied it in detail knows that "the pursuit of happiness" was another way of saying "ownership of private property"

I don't care if those folks are the vegas church of the fuzzy dangling dice, they should be free to serve who they want to serve, with their own labors and their own private property. The fact that they do something that overlaps with churches is virtually irrelevant in this discussion. They are individuals with their own values and should not be forced into participating in something against those values. This is government coercion at it's near ugliest.

What about the photographers and cake bakers who do not wish to participate in something they consider immoral? This is queeranny, homopression. They can now taste the blood and have the city of Houston, even, out to silence the opposition.

The "I told ya so" moment has come for those who were babbling about it being merely a matter of tolerance. The homo community wants mo. They are well past the live and let live point now. They want compulsory endorsement.

Why is it that marriage is NOT a Sacrament in the Lutheran Church (or is that just in the ELCA?) For how long has the doctrine been such?