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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You are an idiot.

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

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.

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?

In 1989 the current owners purchased the Hitching Post

At one time Justice of the Peace officers performed the weddings at The Hitching Post until the position of JP was eliminated in the state.

Weddings are now done by ministers at the Hitching Post 6 days a week

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

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

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.