the war on Christians is out of control
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

That's a crock of chit!!

Well, here's the problem.

Saw that too, but what happened to the right to refuse service?

No one's forcing them to do gay weddings. They can simply stop doing "weddings for profit". They are being forced to choose another profession, but so do we insist that burglars do the same. (No, I am not equating these people with burglars - just pointing out the legal angle).

The whole wedding industry is going to be effected by this - but the Church, IMO, should not be part of the wedding industry. And anybody who does not believe there is such a thing as the "wedding industry" has apparently never had to finance one.

The Church (God's Church) should never have sanctioned any connection of Church weddings to state regulation. IMO, the Church's role in Biblical marriage is or should be completely separate from civil authority. As such, there is no practical or Biblical reason for churches to charge any fee for weddings.

No money changing hands - no authority to regulate. Simple.

JMO. I don't like the way things are going either. I don't agree with any attempt to regulate what The Church may do regarding weddings with her own time and property. But two individuals marrying people for profit does not constitute a Church, IMO.

Hmmmm......

Just run the liberals off from even wanting to get married there...

Post "I Stand with the NRA" signs all around, along with some "I Support __________ Republican for Congress" And "Concealed Carry Welcome Here."

Whatcha thinkin'?


This has been a personal pet peeve of mine for quite some time. I know a lot of folks expect an extravagant church wedding - and that's all fine if they want it. But God's Church should not, IMO, require payment for a ceremony to sanction the joining together of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony. I don't see where that is in accordance to the Bible this is supposed to be based in. Nor do I agree with the customary promotion of such weddings (the ones that cost money) by the church community. Of course - -I can only speak for Biblical Christian faith as I understand it (and I'm trying really hard). I can't see any justification for a Christian wedding in a Christian Church having a price tag.

Getting married in a church shouldn't cost anything.

Blowing a wad of Daddy's money on the reception is a different matter.

No one expects the Secular Inquisition!

If they are running their chapel as a commercial enterprise they will be subject to such non-discrimination enforcements in many/most jurisdictions. Refusing to perform on the basis of their religious convictions is all good and proper, but religious freedom does not extend to a for-profit enterprise that serves the general public in most instances.

As businesspersons, one way they could deal with this is to have ready a hired gun minister whose principles differ and who is willing to come in and do the dirty deed - for pay, of course.

Words fail.

Protected status has been expanded by many states to include homosexuality in addition to other sexual deviance.

The "ministers" are no men of the cloth. They are pimps selling a service, same as any drive-in chapel in Vegas. I'd no more consider their ordination or their sermons "holy" than I would that of Jim Bakker or any two-bit salesman and his prayers.

"Interstate commerce"...

Pray tell, why should one have to give up their human rights just because they are engaging in commerce?

I know that makes it convenient for the Church of State to force everyone to worship at it's alter. All those that is, except those who don't eat.

But what is your excuse for advocating the abandonment of human rights?

Good question, but my answer will have to wait until I'm off work.

Can they do that if the religion does not recognize it

You're half right. One of them is a woman.

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?

This. In spades. If'n you can't beat them, shame them.

Historically, sacraments have different criteria in the Lutheran church. There are two. Baptism and Communion.

Loose your religious bias and apply your logic to any enterprise other than the matter at hand.

If some dude walks into my resturant with his pants down to his knees and want to sit on my furniture in his underware, do I have a right to refuse service. According to your reasoning--I would not have that right.

Forget the religious element. The right of association allows me to do what I want with what is mine, or to deny services for whatever reason I want.

The issue at the heart of alomost all of these cases is "property rights." If we have not property rights, we have no rights at all.

I agree,
I don't know how many people I know who have said I don't have a problem with it if they don't shove it in my face. So they capitulate. Except now it's being shoved in everyones face. Marriage chapel, there was a photography studio who had to close their business because they refused to take pictures at a homosexual marriage. Far from keeping it in the bedroom, it has just come out and they will rub it in everyones face. Don't want to do a cake with two men or two women. Law suit. Don't want to supply flowers to the homosexual wedding, Law suit. Don't want to hire homosexuals in your church, law suit. It's not coming, it's here.

Be careful what you capitulate to. It could come back and bite you in the A$$.

That's a health code issue and a dress code issue.

Read the Civil Rights Act and you'll see they have nothing to do with this topic, but religious and sexual discrimination does

The last thing I want to do is get into some kind of "who gives most" contest. I'll just state here that you assume too much.

If a Church is claiming to be Bible-based, there is little to no cost involved in performing an appropriate wedding ceremony. As for the maintenance expenses - those can be covered by the user, according to the extent of the "party", and I don't see how that would ever be considered "for profit". What I am against, is the arbitrary fees that some churches charge for simply having a wedding. Oh - and the ridiculous extravagance of the rest of the wedding industry. If a church has to charge fees for services to offset the burden of having built too large or extravagant of a building....well....what I have to say about that may offend a lot of "religious" people.

Wow. Pretty easy to see here how the gay community can justify their persecution complex. If I had to guess who fired the first shot in this war....

So - I promised a comment....



First, let me preface this with the the fact that I do not agree with the current trend of granting homosexuals the same protected status as race, religion, and physical disabilities.

Now, moving on to the question. Let's just disregard the federal commerce clause, since it has to do with what states do to each other, but not necessarily what a state does to it's own citizens (I think we can agree on that - even if the political class currently does not).

So - the state chooses to "protect" a class of downtrodden people. Never mind whether we agree that those people are oppressed and never mind whether we like the law. What part of the Constitution prevents a state from doing so? I see a few posters here mention some right of freedom of association, but there is no such enumeration in the constitution that I am aware of. There is this in the eleventh amendment...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

....but that works both ways.

For instance - I am a gun owner and I like to kill animals to eat. If I have an accident (let's say I suffered a fall and broke my leg) while hunting and the only hospital within hours is run by people who believe hunting and killing are both immoral and they are morally obligated not to support such activity (I'm not making this up - I have met people who believe this way)....do they have a right to turn me away in my suffering?

I know the "gay is a choice" argument, and I am not getting into that. Just accept the fact that hunting - like a lot of things - is also a choice for the vast majority of us - so that contrast won't wash.


What about the right of free commerce (which also seems to missing, btw)?

I believe I have the right to breath clean air. If my neighbor decides to build a coal-fired factory that spews unfiltered smoke and ash into my residence, must I bow to his right to unbridled commerce?

[edit] This is where I tip my hat to all my anarchist friends and remind them that they may want to study the wonderful history of the unbridled capitalism of the industrial revolution. Step away from the textbooks and really study it.[/edit]

With all due respect - y'all are very good at remembering what rights you claim, but seem to be a bit forgetful of the rights of others. Some of those rights don't sit well with you (or maybe even me), but once they have been accepted as rights, they do seem to fall under protection of the 11th. Argue the validity of stated rights if you want - that is not the point of my reply here.

Then you seem to forget this, in the 12th...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, the states have powers not enumerated in the constitution - so long as they are not prohibited by it. One of those powers might be making laws against discrimination. You can argue that the sates are being coerced by the federal government into making such laws - but that has little to do with my point, and is a separate argument. BTW - the people have powers too, under this clause, and right now, the apparent majority is calling for this action. Like it or not - that is the reality of it.

There is plenty that is being done against the Constitution, but this one particular case is not part of that lot, IMO. This is background noise. The real fight is elsewhere. I agree that this is probably a deliberate affront to religion and the state is helping - but religion has some housecleaning of it's own to do before it can claim victim status in this case, IMO.

That's my position and y'all are free to disagree. I'm not going to defend it any more here. I find it absolutely disgraceful that those who seem to be crying the loudest about this attack on religion are engaging in or approving of hateful language. But then - there is that house cleaning thing I was talking about....

God made Adam and Eve , not Adam and Steve. very simple. IMO homo's should be shipped off one way to Russia.

If there is no human right of free association, then you agree that the Gov't has the power to choose your spouse for you.

These public accommodation laws don't "protect" anybody - they simply force individuals to associate with other individuals.



Since when do the rights claimed by one party produce an obligation on the part of another party?

The test of whether something is truly a right versus a privilege hinges on whether or not that supposed "right" produces an obligation on someone else's part. For example, if we have a right to an education, that implies that someone is obligated to teach us. Therefore, it is not really a right. However, if you rephrase that as "we have a right to pursue an education", then we may have a right because it doesn't obligate anyone to cooperate. All it does is ban laws that prevent our pursuit.

It has to do with Race, Religion and what sex a person is...

As in male or female. (Or used to be that way.)

The laws were written as to not be able to discriminate against a person just because they are female. Or vice versa.

A person's sexual orientation and who that may, or may not offend either personally, or religiously, opens up a whole other box of crackers altogether.

As a free American, we should all have the latitude to decide for ourselves what offends our religious beliefs, and as business owners, we should be able to deny service or product if those beliefs are offended.

We have the right to keep and bear arms, but thousands of business owners have signs posted about bringing guns in. They won't serve you if you do. Why should refusing to marry gays be any different?

Hard to see freedom in your opinion. Churches should be free to do whatever they want in how others use their building and facilities and what they charge for that privilege. Why they should be treated any different in that regard than anyone else, is curious to say the least.

They can be forced to perform the ceremony. However the wording is up the the minister. I believe if it were me there would be no further requests for my services.

From the article:

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a �religious corporation� limited to performing �one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.�

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business � not as a church or place of worship � and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation

The public accomodation of the civil rights act of 64? does not protect deviants under the phrase "sexual orientation". A lot of sodomites like to suggest it does but it does not.

So my real question is...

How in the world did a local ordinance get passed of this nature in Idaho of all places? Good gravy! If Idaho is going down the deviant toilet ain't no place left!

What the heck is happening in Idaho????

And in Texas pastors being told to give their sermons/speeches/emails to the government. We've slept too long. Time to wake up and take care of business.

Why they should be treated differently????

They are tax exempt non-profit orgs. That's pretty different already. If they are profiting from weddings, that kind of weakens their non-profit status claim, doesn't it?

The freedom in my opinion is obvious. Churches are free to choose whether they are non-profit houses of worship or if they are a business (as in, seeking profit). Some of them like to blur the lines and have been getting away with it for decades. We have traditionally given them a pass on that, but it appears that is going to get harder.

My thought is that these ministers should give them a ceremony that will convert them from their wicked ways. 4 hours of sermons on the evils of homosexuality and how they will end up in hell suffering eternal damnation and everlasting agony in hell should cause them to reconsider forcing the minister to marry them.

It's Coeur d�Alene. That place is completely over-run with left-coast invaders, and has been for a long time. It's not an Idaho law, it's a city ordinance. And BTW - it isn't the civil rights act of '68 either. Did I mention, it's a city ordinance? I thought you saw that in your previous post.

The reason this city ordinance is now being applied is because the 9th circuit court (thanks again, left coast) has ruled that Idaho and other states cannot ban gay marriage. We aren't doing this - it's being done to us.

Still....it's background noise. While this has conservatives all up in arms, the real battle goes on under their nose.

Several things come to mind here. For one thing, I've always been against the government being in the marriage business. Since they don't test for diseases and such anymore, I don't see the point of a marriage license-other than for taxes.

The tax code is so convoluted and effed up it is unreal. Why should married folk get breaks for being hitched? Why should people get to deduct their kids? None of it is fair and none of it makes sense. Sorry for saying the f word. I know most here are against fairness of any kind and the word itself is an anathema to them.

I don't see why the government gets to define marriage in the first place. It's all about money. I couldn't care less if two guys want to get married. I don't believe in it and neither does my Church. The Church shouldn't be forced to marry people they don't believe in marrying. Neither should an individual minister. It begs the question of what happens if a Catholic Priest decides that a hetero couple hasn't done well enough on the class they have to take before getting hitched and refuses to marry them? If you have to marry homos, why not make them marry heteros where the marriage is bound to fail?

The whole thing is so effed it's insane. It's obvious that real marriage is between a man and a woman, but at the same time, where is it the government's role to define it as such or in any other way? I've long thought that this is what would result by letting the government be in charge of marriage.

I also think there's a misunderstanding of tax exempt status, but maybe it's by me. From what I understood, Churches are organizations, not Ministers. The Church is exempt from taxes but individual Ministers are not. Therefore the Church itself cannot be told what to do on this because it is marrying nobody. When my wife and I got hitched, we paid the Preacher. The Church got nothing. I might have made a donation, but there was no requirement. I don't have any idea if the Preacher would have done it if it was a situation where he knew he wasn't getting paid. But I assume the Preacher reported the income and paid taxes on it.

That would probably work, if they gave the same sermon for all their weddings. Might actually be a good idea. They could require pre-marriage counseling as part of the package.

But that might drive away 90% of their customers.....

Well, Ethan.....it appears you have noticed some of the real battle.

Not in the least. No organization is totally non-profit or they wouldn't exist for long. Every entity has to take in more than it spends or the doors will soon be shut. The tax code simply identifies certain endeavors as doing enough public good that they can qualify for tax exemption.

Churches are only one of those. We've used non-profits for two of my kids graduation parties. Neither a church, but both charged us to use the facility which we were happy to pay. Maybe your objection is more centered on the church rather than non-profits in general, as most seem to enjoy renting parts of their facilities to help make ends meet.

That's a fair assumption. And I don't claim innocence in this. I have only come to the place where I see the problem recently.

For a Christian church to say they are "non-profit" while requiring "donations" for goods or services, seems to me, there is a problem reconciling that with faith and honesty. I know that for most religious groups, my thoughts on this would be challenging to the point of being offensive. I'm okay with that.

I think you can reconcile your thoughts in terms of "not-for-profit."
Any non-profit, religious or non religious, must cover its cost of providing services.
"Thou shalt not muzzel the ox that treads the corn." Paul uses that verse to explain that he saw no contradition in receiving material support for Spiritual ministry.

You think Paul was writing about The Church charging for services? The way it reads to me is that he was talking about The Church supporting it's own ministers (Paul and Barnabas) in their missionary work and travel. Or at least the idea that he should be able to expect that.

(From 1 Corinthians 9)



Here, he is not talking about The Church being paid for a service - quite the opposite. The focus of the passage is on The Church providing for those who are serving. Then he goes on to write...



Paul doesn't condemn the preacher who accepts support from The Church - but he doesn't demand it for himself.


I don't think that helps me agree with Christian Churches charging members or non-members for services or goods for profit. And I definitely don't think this excuses charging arbitrary fees for a wedding. But neither, in my mind, have anything to do with expecting expenses (like clean-up) to be covered by the user.

"But neither, in my mind, have anything to do with expecting expenses (like clean-up) to be covered by the user."

And this is my though as well.

My reference was far beyond the issue of the original post. I thought you had drifted into the area of wither a pastor, minister, or Evangelist should receive material compensation for spiritual ministry.

Preachers gotta eat too.

Do you even comprehend what the term "non-profit" means legally? Or the more common term nowadays "not for profit"? You're kind of sounding like a liberal who wants free handouts, but actually somebody else has to pay for it behind the scenes.

Going on 500 years now... Sacramental definition in the Lutheran church is that Christ commands it and ties God's Word and promise to that which we can taste, see, touch, smell, hear - i.e. water, wine, bread.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could not see that my point in that post has little do with legal definitions. If the measure of a religion is how it stands legally with the state, something very important is missing.

Me? A liberal looking for a handout? Hardly.

Look at it another way.....if your religion has so little faith and so few practitioners willing to sacrifice their own contribution that it can't survive without taking in profit, what does that say about it? Lots of secular non-profit orgs need to do that, but they are not burdened with the mission of spreading the Good News (Gospel is such a misunderstood word) - so their only standard is to meet legal requirements. The Church....God's Church....should have higher standards.

Be like the Pagans and divorce the Church from the State. Simple!

Proving once again, that you can learn something from everybody.

Marriage is one of the few things the state has any legitimate interest in. Especially if you take the classic, as opposed to the modernistic, view of what the state is supposed to be.

Not sure where you're going with that, based on your previous posts - but even accepting that statement at face value, it doesn't give me any reason to agree that The Church should have any connection or co-operation with the State's marriage agenda.

The Church is not "taking in profit" when they ask someone to pay the COSTS of a wedding in their building. Your above description clearly shows that you want the religious adherents to make their own contributions in order to cover the COSTS of someone else's wedding ceremony. That's the definition of being a freeloader.

You're holding to a double-standard for religious non-profits due to your misunderstanding of the legal definition. And yes, in this discussion, the legal definition is what counts, since if the laws/courts were not involved, this wouldn't be any kind of problem at all in the first place.

The classic view of the state was that it represented a people. It's function was to represent and protect the interests of a people.
Therefore, the state was responsible for protecting the people from enemies and invaders, the integrity of the borders, and the general welfare of the people. There are 3 basic ways to eliminate a people - annihilation, infiltration and dilution, and finally, infertility. So, the state, along with it's general function of protecting life, limb and societal cohesion, has a corollary function of promoting the continued production of the people it represents.

When you get into the modern view of the state as simply a geographical monopoly, it's interest in promoting the continuation of any people becomes a little murkier, but is still there. After all, it's difficult for a state to continue when none of the people believe in the ideals it espouses. So therefore the state must encourage the production of the people that do believe it's organizing principles.

If these queers had any real balls they try this [bleep] in a Muslim mosque. But, I guess we all know what the outcome of that would be.

I wonder if any homo`s will try and get married in a Mosque???

If you're going to have a discussion with me in which you attempt to describe "my" point of view, it would help if you actually read what I have written - and not just the last post. I have not been talking about Churches recovering expenses. I have been talking about deliberate profit-making from service fees, intended to help cover other costs not related to the services. Lots of congregations do this. My point is that if they need to make a profit on services (which, clearly, some do) then their members are not upholding their stewardship responsibilities....OR, there is something so fundamentally wrong that membership is shrinking. This says something about that particular sect - but I am not pretending to say that I can tell you exactly what it says for any individual group.

I'll stand by my opinion....if a religious group needs to exact profit from services provided to others and to it's own members, there is a fundamental problem in the background. If it needs to profit from others to maintain a building that it cannot otherwise afford, the moral (not legal) line between faith & worship and business is blurred.

If you don't understand the difference between profit and expenses reimbursed, I can't help you understand my POV.

I do not misunderstand the legal definition of "non-profit". I do hold "religion" to a different standard. Especially those claiming to be Bible-based Christian groups. But that wasn't my idea. Can you guess who's it might be?

Okay - I see where you were going with that, then.

But the state having an interest in promoting marriage as a means to reproduction and cultural unity is not the same as having a right to usurp the religious sacrament of marriage vows and blessings. That's what the Church is supposed to be about in this respect. The Church should never have bowed to the state's desire to license marriage. We the People should never have submitted to manipulation through the tax code. The fact that these things are already in place does not excuse it as right or just. This goes back to something I posted early in this thread - to the effect that The Church should never have participated in this joint-ownership of the marriage rite.

And - just to get back to the OP - Two preachers and a building doing weddings for hire does not constitute a Church. Not in my view, anyway. I suspect that we will soon find out if the courts hold that same view. The implication at the beginning of this thread was that the owners of this wedding chapel were being charged, but that is not factual. The truth is that they have filed a preemptive lawsuit against the ordinance....

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/regional/2014/10/21/wedding-chapel-sues-gay-marriage/17681477/

Ministers to homos: "Our fee just went up to $10,000,000."

I agree that govt taxes (licenses) for getting married should be abolished, as those are impediments to beneficial behavior rather than encouragements.
However, we do have taxes and they aren't going away anytime soon. Therefore the tax code, along with the legal code, should incentivize real marriage (not the homo unions).


Since when does marriage have to be held in a church to be religious? Can it not be sacred outside of those walls?
And we aren't talking about "church" here. We are talking about religious beliefs. Why should an act have to be performed within the walls of a church to be religious? Should we all leave our beliefs at the door when we leave a church?

Also, you get into the profit/non-profit thing. That is only a legal distinction and not a factual one. Just ask the president of United Way what difference it makes to them.
Even if the chapel is "for profit" you get into the Goldilocks conundrum. What is "profit"? Is it the salary of the pres of United Way? Is it a modest house, car and food for a couple that runs a small business? Or could it even be the money that buys simple meals and a few clothes for a cloistered monk? Or can it only be profit if it appears on the income statement of a business registered as "for profit"?
Of course, there is no wrong or right answer to that because it's all your opinion. All could be construed as "profit".
So, it's a BS argument.

What this story really boils down to is whether or not the Gov't can force you to betray your God and worship at their alter instead.

Yes or no.

They knew the rules before they went into the business
They still can choose not to perform the weddings

What they can not do is pick and choose their customers

You are an idiot.

Okay, I quoted your post directly to determine your point of view. In that post at least, you were describing profit-taking by churches. I've been around an awful lot of churches, and yet to have been with a single one that was deliberately profit-taking on services to support themselves/building. Indeed, almost all that I can think of have actually undercharged the realistic cost of weddings specifically. In other words, the congregation is actually subsidizing the true costs of the wedding service.

Satan is doing a full court press. He will ultimately be totally crushed but things will get much uglier before it happens. This is just the beginning. He's trying to take down as many people with him as he can.

Which brings us back to the question of what is "forcing". You say any interference at all is forcing. I say making a distinction between a business and a religious practice is not. I say what has been recognized as "marriage" has already been corrupted by the secular world to the point that Churches long ago let that Pandora's box be opened - without even getting into gay weddings.

Well, good for you - seriously. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, and I never said all or even most do.

The "church" in the OP, is clearly a profit-making business though.

Snyper - in this case you're right - they can't pick and choose their customers. But pastors of actual congregations (NOT these guys) CAN pick and choose. I have the right to tell ANY couple, hetero or homo, that I will NOT (or cannot) in good conscience, marry them. There is ALWAYS the option of a justice of the peace at the court house in those states where homosexual marriage is legal.

Key word there, in bold. If marriage is for sale, expect the usual government interference. We all went along with it as long as "the usual" didn't offend us. Now....not so much.

Heard this gem in church today...

"The Church should spend less time defending it's institutions, and more time just being The Church."

Context....What The Church does for others as representatives of Christ is more important than the preservation of it's traditions.

My position is if we all did so, the issue in the OP would not have any effect on us.

You're correct
Most keep missing the fact that this is not about "ministers" , but rather a BUSINESS

I really don't care what you think about me

It's obvious you couldn't refute what I said in a mature, adult manner, so you just hurl childish insults at me instead, which makes you the loser in the discussion

Wasn't the ordnance passed "after" they had been in business? And wasn't their mission statement fashioned before the ordinance passed?
Did I miss that?

Pretty close. A license is required to solemnize marriages legally. A license is actually state control. So to solemnize marriages, and for them to have standing before the law, the state has control of every aspect

But before the law and before God are two different things. A marriage before God is valid before him, even if it isn't before the law. It has standing before God, but not law.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964
A quick search finds:

http://hitchingpostweddings.com/about/

You keep harping on the same thing I already shredded. Maybe if you'd actually read my posts you'd see they refute every one of your points.

The only thing I see you leaning on is assertion that the CRA is constitutional. Even Clarence Thomas has said he'd like to take that one out.

Sooo, how would it go if one went into a muslim cafe and ordered a BLT?

It's a place of public accommodation, ya know.

Maybe, homo wedding are just not on the menu, elsewhere. just sayin.

I think rikinbbar pretty much corrected your application of the Civil Rights Act. See post #9271456

If the people in question are not public officials they should be able to conduct their buisness occording to the dictates of their concious.

So, you're on the side that government can give them to.

Speaks of my point.

The Church should not be concerned about making things between two persons "legal". Nor should The Church be used or managed as a business for profit. The de-facto partnership in the marriage industry should never have taken place and should be dissolved. This is all about special treatment by the government of married couples. We should never have asked for that or allowed it to happen. We like social engineering by tax code when it favors our own bias - but now that it does not.....

Bad analogy. That is - unless churches offer different flavors of wedding. A better analogy would be if you approached a hot dog stand and ordered a hot-dog and were then told, "we don't serve republicans".

It appears that the city and even the ACLU agree with you, and favor the Hitchin' Post point of view more than I do.....

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/coeur-dalene-says-hitching-post-exempt-gay-rights-law

Take note though, that they have had to change the list of their services in order to comply. (read the comments)

If you are a member of a church in the south, then having a wedding at your church is free. You might pay a tip to the pastor for performing the wedding. Reception is another matter. Some have receptions in the church dining hall without alcohol. Only decorations and food/snacks/flowers are what you pay for. So, in the south it pays to be a church member, for weddings or funerals. Some get married in the church, but have a reception at say the Elks Lodge where they can have alcohol. Membership at the Elks Lodge around here was $100 a year. Not bad, and they have a pool, monthly music and dancing.

...Court filings show the Hitching Post reorganized earlier this month as a �religious corporation.� In the paperwork, the owners describe their deeply held beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman....

Wow, a "religious corporation?" That may answer some people's prayers.

I've read enough of your rhetorical drivel to know it's meaningless.

The only thiing you "shredded" was any credibility you may have had

I'm on the side that says everyone has the same right to be treated equally by businesses

You'd bitch and moan if they refused to serve gun owners

A business can NOT force their beliefs on the customers

They have to treat them all the same

If a business refused to serve gun owners, first, we would ask how did they know? Then we would simply refuse to do business with them.


Secondly, this business in NOT forcing their beliefs on its customers. It is the customers via the power of the state forcing its belief on the business.

Big Difference!!!

The customers aren't forcing any "beliefs" by wanting to use the business

No one cares if they "believe" in it at all

They just want the same SERVICE offered to everyone else who pays the fees to the BUSINESS

The owners ARE forcing it by demanding the customers share their beliefs in order to obtain services offered for SALE to the public, which is illegal.

This is a circular argument. By using your rational, the customers ARE foring their belief on the buisness by demanding service...which up to a week ago (according to the article) was illegal.

So, would you be content in them being forced to rent out the faciliy...and not perform the wedding?

They aren't forcing any "beliefs"

They just want the SAME service provided to ALL other customers

No one has to change what they believe.

They just have to provide the service as they would to any other customer

It's really not that complicated

Well, that's dodging the point. A gay couple could conceal that fact, just as we conceal our guns. Will we all need to provide evidence of sex for a Christian wedding? How else can a poor minister be sure.

Background noise, gentlemen......

If religious groups were half as concerned about knowing and serving God as they are about having their man - made traditions defended, the world would be a better place.

That is a bit absurb. The idea that you would suggest that one would marry someone of the same sex to conceal their sodomy is really beneath you. The issue is same sex marriage. That is not the Biblical pattern reguardless of your alleged higher standard for religious or "Christian" platitiudes.

Marriage, by the way, is not a man-made tradition.

DITTOS!

No, it really is not that complicated.

If one has a deeply held belief that something is morally wrong, they have a choice of wither or not they want to participate in it. Being in buisness does not require (in a free country) to give up those convictions to be in business.

This is something that your customers will decide. They may decide that they do not want to do business with you and you loose customers. You may then go out of business. However, I doubt that this will be the case.

Instead, the government will put them out of business by fines and imprisonment, unless they "conform" to the ditates government morality...not to the ditates of their own concious.

Further, this is not the morality of the voters of Utah. It is the morality of appointed judges usurping the will of the people.

Its that simple.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A MAN-MADE TRADITION!

If marriage is not a man-made tradition than who invented marriage and don't say God. We have no empirical evidence on what God thinks or doesn't think about marriage.

The study of the tradition of marriage shows that marriage is a man-made or maybe I should say male-made tradition.

Why would they have done that?

edit: hint: Genesis 2:24. Not empirical, just a command from God.

To use women, who up until recently were chattel, for political purposes such as increasing a man's wealth, power, land, uniting clans, etc.

Up until a hundred years or so if a woman with property and money married in Montana she lost all rights to her property and money as it became the man's property and money upon marriage.

This is tough to understand unless one is willing to study ancient history and religions.

Of course I knew what your answer would be. Not an expert on ancient history or religions, but do know what Genesis 2:24 says. That's fairly ancient.

Yeah, it is. It didn't exist in it's current form until the Judeo-Christian-Islam faith structure arose in the Middle East.

It dates to the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture of the Middle East. That culture created what we consider marriage today, using their religious text (that you cite) as grounds.

Yup with the man in charge.

Could you give a rough date?

I have given a few rough dates on request.

Well the Old Testament has been dated to be about 6,000 years old so I guess that would be a good place to start. As Judaism is a monotheistic, androcratic religion maybe that was the start.

If you are really interested start looking at when we went from a hunter/gatherer culture/society to an agrarian culture/society. Also compare the marriage history of the Greco/Roman area with marriage history of the Celts, Germans, and Norse in their area.

Maybe we need to define "tradition". The tradition began sometime in, well, in the beginning. What the history of each ethnic or people group is doesn't really interest me.

My question of a rough date was directed to 4ager. I was being sincere. It sounded a lot later than that to which I was alluding.

We have a record of what God thinks. Both Old and New Testaments. What is "tradition" may or may not look like that record depending on the view one takes.

No, it is not. The concept and covenant relationship of marriage was introduced by God himself in the Garden Eden. This precedes the Judeo-Christian-Islam faith structure by almost 2000 years.

That clearly was not the purpose as expressed by Jesus The Christ in the New Testament.

Of course it's absurd. I"m just pointing out your bad analogy - and the fact that you were dodging the point.



Let's just clear something up here. In spite of Derby's attempt to inject his form of history here in what is clearly out of his understanding....my beef isn't with marriage, nor am I claiming that the Christian marriage is man's invention. It's weddings. Holy matrimony is a state of the heart, and not subject to laws and traditions. Wedding ceremonies as we know them are a man-made tradition. Is that so hard to understand? I am not attacking marriage - traditional or otherwise. It is the whole wedding ceremony and the industry and the mythology and the politics that surrounds it that is man-made and it is this ceremony/tradition that is the focus of the gay community. It surely isn't holy matrimony that they're seeking - otherwise, they would simply make the pact between themselves and God. No - it's about money, tradition, social status, and ego. (Which, BTW, weigh heavily in the issue for many of those outside the gay community as well)

To think that the gay movement can somehow destroy marriage or in any way harm The Kingdom of God is just, well, not Biblical. How on earth can anybody come between a Christian couple and God? How on earth can anybody come between a Christian minister and God? .....Unless we give them the leverage to do so - as we have with the wedding tradition/industry. This whole thing is the kind of noise designed to discredit the Christian faith by the very reaction it is provoking from many.

If the Church would just let this gaudy ceremony and legal document go, and just be concerned with where our hearts are with God - this whole thing becomes nothing but insignificant background noise...as it should be. It's just the world being what the world is. Our mission is supposed to be above all this.

I beg to differ. Part of the pastor's "marriage" service is the sermon that he feels is appropriate for each "couple". If the "couple" doesn't care for the way he performs the service then they are welcome to seek a different pastor for their marriage.

I think if two people wish to be married before the Body and God then they should do so. If they wish to be married before the law let them go find a judge. That judge, he should not oversee vows but simply sign the paper.

FreeMe,

I'm going to back out of this discussion simply because we are not taking issue on identical points. Our responses simply overlap in some areas that only muddy up the waters and call for needless defense of particular parts of the argument.

Please allow me to end with a clear statement of my position.

It is my position that one has the right to follow the dictates of one's conscious in the execution of one's business with little to no interference from the state.

This has been an interesting thread - I've been reading, I think I only responded once. GeorgiaBoy - unfortunately one does not have the right, in the case of marriage, to execute one's own business without interference from the state. Should we? Yes. I agree with your position. But it's not the current state of reality. In fact, if I perform a wedding ceremony or blessing of a couple in any publicly accountable way, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE I'm in fairly serious trouble with the state. Hence my position that parallels yours - I dislike being an officer of the state simply because I am an ordained pastor, but I can't preside at marriage/wedding services without first submitting my credentials to the county courthouse in the county of my residence.

FreeMe - you're spot-on with the wedding vs. marriage thing. Weddings, as we currently know them, are remnants of court weddings, mostly Victorian court wedding patterns. They sealed treaties and property agreements, and a very cynical, though realistic view, is that the woman was a legal hostage against hostilities and to protect the agreements. Weddings (think of them as singular events) are a profit-making industry only by the choice of the couple and/or families and social pressure. Any wedding which occurs in a congregational/church setting can just as easily take place within about a 5-10 minute service with vows of faithfulness made by the couple AND the present congregation to pray for them and hold them accountable to their public vows. All of the ceremony with processionals, special music, secular symbolic unity ceremonies (sand ceremony, unity candle, etc) recessionals, pomp, and circumstance are adiaphora (stuff unnecessary for the substantive event to take place) and only contribute to the cost and/or debt of the couple and their families.

Trying to get my head around your response. So you are saying that if you performed a ceremony within the capacity as pastor, with the couple knowing there is no license and you cannot legally solemnize them, you are in trouble.

It seems to me that if the couple knows that fact, and you do not sign the license, then there should not be a problem. i would have them sign a paper verifying that they know what you do has no legal standing. Beyond that, with you not representing yourself as an agent of the state, I see no problem.

That was "taken care of" by the bakers who refused to make a cake.

How about the Houston Mayors' attempt to control what is spoken from the churches?

Its call "transformational change" you can believe in.