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

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.....