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

a reply to: skunkape23

sorry, all i see is what you quoted

Also: f*** this keyboard.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I have a suggestions: how about for every month that church refuses to marry a same sex couple, it has to pay taxes?

That's exactly how this issue is being used to tear down Christianity. Its their tax exempt status the liberals are after. Right now they're attacking their revenue streams by breaking the church's biggest donors. Next it will be the churches themselves.

a reply to: Cuervo

Why should they? Presumably Harry and all his patrons also pay the very same taxes as everyone else for the very same infrastructure, and if Harry can open his bar and discriminate, why can't the non-white people open their own?

Turnabout is fair play.

Instead of whining about what you can't have or don't have, make your own. Girls couldn't get into the Boy Scouts ... so, they have the Girl Scouts.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

They are allowed to believe whatever they want. They are not allowed to discriminate or break other laws.

Belief is allowed but not practice when conflicting with other laws.

a reply to: beezzer

Keep falling back on that same silly argument, your ass has got to pretty damn sore by now. Tax-exempt is granted because of religious beliefs, churches are not open to the public, they are open to those seeking religion.

originally posted by: Elton
www.religionnews.com...

Religious entities are exempt from the city’s ordinance, as they often are in discrimination ordinances. But earlier this year, city attorney Warren Wilson said that the chapel, a for-profit business, would likely be required to follow the ordinance.

Apparently the crux is they are not classified as a non-profit religious institution but as a public business meaning the non-discrimination laws apply to them.

It really is no different than the Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple because of their religious beliefs. Once you are open for business to the public you eliminate the right to prejudice. Religious belief isn't enough to allow someone prejudice freedom. I happen to agree, punish all or punish none. And this probably will create some backlash against the gay community.

a reply to: beezzer

IMO it doesn't and that's the plan. I'm a firm believer that if you want to open a bakery that only sells burned snicker doodles to gingers in the fall of leap year... you should damn well be able to do it.

You aren't hurting anyone but yourself when you restrict your clientele or your product. And forcing people to do what a few perceive as correct or righteous is stepping over the line as far as I'm concerned. The boundaries are continuously being pushed further and further back and everyone seems to be fine with it as long as it benefits them. One day it's not going to. One day the boundary pushers are going to be on their front porch and those who did not care before are going to wonder wtf is happening and why nobody is their to fight for their rights to serve their moon pies to their ADHD seeing eye dog on All Hallows' Eve.

It sounds silly, and I did that on purpose. That's exactly how silly I see the rest of this shiite that is being foisted on others.

None of these people are saving lives. None of them are turning sick people away from their doors to die I the street. But that's the way it's being treated. If one wants to restrict their customer pool, let them do it. They will either become extinct or barely scrape by and that should please those who don't agree with their practices anyway. This reeks of folks who just get their jollies by forcing people to do things that they believe may endanger their very soul. If it was purely about businesses being fair, they would leave it alone and let the patronage decide it's fate.

JMHO.

Do I have to give the obligatory "I don't give two shats who gets married. Let them suffer through the divorces, alimony, and child support issues everyone else does legally." Now?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Keep falling back on that same silly argument, your ass has got to pretty damn sore by now. Tax-exempt is granted because of religious beliefs, churches are not open to the public, they are open to those seeking religion.

You're playing words games.

Tax-exempt is granted for any number of reasons.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

So ignore faith.

Toss it away.

Trash religious freedom.

State-sponsored belief is the only acceptable form of belief.

You said it, not me.

I would like to see a solution, personally. Allowing regular for-profit businesses to discriminate is no more a solution than forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings.

There has got to be an option C.

I simply spoke the truth of the matter.

There is no religious freedom anymore.

sure there is. in the safety of your house. where you can do just about anything you want. if you want to be public and flamboyant and obnoxious about it, you bring the consequences on yourself.

Except being married is not being "public and obnoxious and flamboyant." And no one is being obnoxious about their faith in this unless the gays go and look for trouble by asking people they know are not going to want to marry them.

If they know how to find Christians who hold to traditional marriage, they also know how to find any of those who support gay marriage.

This is basically a campaign of lawfare against Christianity.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I have a suggestions: how about for every month that church refuses to marry a same sex couple, it has to pay taxes?

That's exactly how this issue is being used to tear down Christianity. Its their tax exempt status the liberals are after. Right now they're attacking their revenue streams by breaking the church's biggest donors. Next it will be the churches themselves.

absolutely. our whole purpose here isnt at all concerned with EQUAL LIBERTIES. we just wanna watch some churches burn. Totally caught us.

i have no idea how you take yourself seriously.

a reply to: beezzer

But since we're talking about religion... who's playing word games here? Seems to be you.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

But since we're talking about religion... who's playing word games here? Seems to be you.

You are the one that supports the state dictating beliefs.

Dance around it all you want, it's true.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Which is all fine and dandy until someone gets hurt or dies as a result. How many businesses would begin to discriminate if given the choice? Imagine Walmart enacting a corporate policy of not serving Mexicans, even if they show papers proving they're legal? You think that small minority has enough people who care enough to boycott the low, low prices? Nope. Their business would still profit but some Mexicans without access to any other store may starve to death. And yes given the Walmart business plan of drive all other businesses away, it is very feasible that this could happen.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Explain to me how it's equal.

By the way, this country was founded on liberty by people who came here seeking religious liberty.

It was not founded by people who came here seeking equality. You cannot have both equality and liberty. Liberty is always sacrificed to gain equality or vice versa.

If the choice I have is to have my life, thoughts and beliefs dictated to me or to be free but not exactly equal to everyone else ... I choose the second, and I'd rather die than be forced into the first.

a reply to: beezzer

Oh wahhh... I don't support the State dictating sht. I support public accommodation, if people are too immature to handle operating in the public, they shouldn't do so.

Beezzer I think you're just feigning dimness to prolong a thread. This chapel is no different than one in Vegas. It is NOT affiliated in anyway with a specific religion, altho the two owners certainly are.

That said, no one is forcing either of these ministers to preform the ceremony. They could hire any number of qualified Ministers who do not personally have the same beliefs to do it. That they CHOSE to act as martyrs all indignant is just a misdirection of the issue.

They are a public business subject to the same laws as any other. Unfortunately they did not think their business model thru as carefully as they maybe should have? What you are proposing is the same as a Jewish Deli refusing to sell a bagel to a Muslim because of the Deli Owners beliefs.

These two Ministers are selling a product....A marriage ceremony.
Who they want to sell has nothing to do with who they have to sell to. THAT is regulated by the Federal, State, local laws in tandem with the type of business they registered.

This really has nothing to do with religion, or two butt-hurt Ministers. Heck it doesn't even have anything to do with Gay Marriage!! It does have everything to do with their business/tax designation.

a reply to: ketsuko

so you are okay with discrimination.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You're being played. When TPTB are done using you to achieve their goals, you're gonna find yourself at the business end of a bullwhip just like the rest of us.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: TzarChasm

You're being played. When TPTB are done using you to achieve their goals, you're gonna find yourself at the business end of a bullwhip just like the rest of us.

just because i support gays? whatever. stop talking to me.

a reply to: beezzer

I'm kind of surprised by this whole thread beez, you're often a reasonable person whom I disagree with at times. Now you sound like you've gone off the deep-end with your stance. I'm not sure if you're just trying to continue the discussion or if you really are refusing to see any other point of view.

It's a little disappointing.