If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

a reply to: beezzer
But they already are. There is a federal law that protects the religious institutions and ministers. It is called the ministerial exception and bars the federal government from getting involved on what all goes on in a church. In short what goes on in a church is on the say of a minister or a priest, not the federal government, as long as it does not break criminal law.

The only way that the government could make a church, any church do any social actions would be to remove not only this law, in the federal laws, but also remove the tax exempt status of that church. And I do not believe that anyone would agree to such, cause then it would open up a door that would cause a lot of problems.

Based off of the various court decisions, as long as it is in a church or other religious institution, that being non accomidating, it stays there and the government can not interfere with such. The only way the government interfers with it is if a felony is being comitted, like rape or murder.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: beezzer
But they already are. There is a federal law that protects the religious institutions and ministers. It is called the ministerial exception and bars the federal government from getting involved on what all goes on in a church. In short what goes on in a church is on the say of a minister or a priest, not the federal government, as long as it does not break criminal law.

Discrimination isn't criminal/federal law? (Apologies, not a lawyer)

The only way that the government could make a church, any church do any social actions would be to remove not only this law, in the federal laws, but also remove the tax exempt status of that church. And I do not believe that anyone would agree to such, cause then it would open up a door that would cause a lot of problems.

Government could threaten to remove tax exempt status if churches didn't comply with federal law.

Based off of the various court decisions, as long as it is in a church or other religious institution, that being non accomidating, it stays there and the government can not interfere with such. The only way the government interfers with it is if a felony is being comitted, like rape or murder.

You sound more knowledgeable than I on the subject, so maybe I'm wrong.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

they can't make a church do anything by removing their tax exempt status I don't believe since that is just a perk that the gov't extends to churches anyways, all removing it would do is make the church responsible for paying taxes on their profits. Bob Jones University went without their tax exempt status for awhile rather than do away with racist policies.

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[14] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[15] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[16] The case eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. After BJU lost the decision in Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574)[1983], the university chose to maintain its interracial dating policy and pay a million dollars in back taxes. The year following the Court decision, contributions to the university declined by 13 percent.[17] In 2000, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush to the university, Bob Jones III dropped the university's interracial dating rule, announcing the change on CNN's "Larry King Live".[18] In the same year Bob Jones III drew criticism when he reposted a letter on the university's web page referring to Mormons and Catholics as "cults which call themselves Christian".[19]
en.wikipedia.org...

ya I know this is a university, and not a church, but well the protections offered the churches are stronger than those offered to religious institutions like universities. the point I am making is that if the church had any integrity well, they would just give up the carrot the govt was offering them in exchange for running their church they way it should be run to begin with. I mean many christians in russia endured much greater pain for holding onto their faith didn't they??

but as it is Bob Jones university still has the priviledge of our taxpayers feeding students into their enrollment through the financial aide programs even though they have been know to counsel rape victims to ask forgiveness from their rapist and try to place the blame on the victim and their leaders have been known to make statement that the gays should be killed as the old testament proclaims... We seem to be very, very far off from the gov't forcing church ministers to marry gay couples!! I am not even sure if the catholic churches will marry divorce women and they sure the heck don't practice any equal opportunities when employing women priests!

a reply to: beezzer

Discrimination laws don't apply to religious institutions or religious businesses... they don't apply to private business. They apply to businesses open to the public and to government.

a reply to: Kali74

One could make the argument that churches are open to the public.

There are many things that could change once the Supreme Court ruling comes down.

It's surprising (to say the least) to see many skeptical to my hypothesis.

I'd sure like to be wrong.

a reply to: beezzer

One cannot make that argument.

originally posted by: beezzer
Discrimination isn't criminal/federal law? (Apologies, not a lawyer)

It is Federal but not Criminal. It's only Civil Law which is why when it's violated the victim is allowed to sue them over it but that's it. The state doesn't press Criminal Charges against anyone and nobody goes to prison over it.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: buster2010

Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?

It sucks.

If you think Texas is ANYTHING like living in territory controlled by ISIS, you have a helluva lot of research to do and the narrowest mindset I know.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Kali74

One could make the argument that churches are open to the public.

There are many things that could change once the Supreme Court ruling comes down.

It's surprising (to say the least) to see many skeptical to my hypothesis.

I'd sure like to be wrong.

This is a horrible example. City parks are open to the public, that doesn't mean I can take my dirt bike through and tear up the grass. One cannot demand to be let in somewhere then demand rules change to accommodate them and only them.

a reply to: chuck258

But we are seeing rule changes to accommodate people, because if you don't, then it's discrimination.

My 2 cents: On the legal issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, I think it is time for it to be changed. Who the f***cares if two men or two women want to get married? But that is a legal issue and it is separate from the issue of forcing churches to marry said gay couples. That issue boils my blood. Many of you here claim "the church doesn't have a monopoly on the word marriage" and guess what, you'd be right! Churches aren't the only places people can get married, so stop freaking going there (for the places where gay marriage is recognized.) It really is that simple and completely avoids ninety percent of problems and outrages we see. That Christian flower shop isn't the only place you can buy flowers from. When you cross over that line is when YOU (Libs, Christian Bashers, Militant gays, etc) CREATE the conflict. Christians are passive by nature, and in telling you they would rather not deliver flowers to your wedding or make a cake that goes against their personal beliefs, they are being passive. You are the direct cause of conflict when you begintrying to take steps to punish them for personal beliefs. How tolerant of you.

a reply to: beezzer

Marking this thread for the "I told you so" in a few months / years.

a reply to: beezzer

No. what you're seeing is the expansion of the existing rules to include more people. Businesses open to the public cannot discriminate... it has always been this way it's just that over time more and more groups became considered the public. This is what we're seeing now with members of the LBGT community.

originally posted by: chuck258
That Christian flower shop isn't the only place you can buy flowers from. When you cross over that line is when YOU (Libs, Christian Bashers, Militant gays, etc) CREATE the conflict. Christians are passive by nature, and in telling you they would rather not deliver flowers to your wedding or make a cake that goes against their personal beliefs, they are being passive. You are the direct cause of conflict when you begintrying to take steps to punish them for personal beliefs. How tolerant of you.

You were good up until here. It's a Flower shop. Not a Christian Flower shop. There isn't anything Religious about a flower shop other than possibly the owner but who cares. If I go into a shop owned by a Hindu, or Buddhist, or a Scientologist are you supposed to abide by their religious ideals too??? A "public accommodations" business is secular and serves all equally by law. If you want a "Religious Business" that is fine too but it is legally classified as that which is different. A "public accommodations" business can't discriminate in their employment or their service. You must reclassify your business to do that.

Don't give me the "Christians are passive by nature" crap. They're people like any other. Some are passive, some aren't. Do I really need to provide examples of this or will you just accept what we both know is true and save me some time??

You want to talk tolerant, fine. How about tolerating the fact that people are different and have different skin color, beliefs, customs, language, etc. and that is no reason to treat them differently than you would any other person. If you can't handle that then you don't need to operate a business that is a "Public Accommodations" business because you don't know how to Accommodate the Public. Have a Member Only Business instead and deal with only those people who you want to.

a reply to: dawnstar

... just like they can't make a state do anything either ... except by removing federal funding. We all know how that works out.

There are a lot of churches that survive on the margins just liker there are with businesses. Everyone will say, "Oh, well, then just pay the taxes," but for the poor country church fueled by the tithes of the older country folks, that isn't an option. So they either do what the federal government wants or they will die off leaving many without a viable place of worship.

This is why so many politicians, especially those on the left, are using the phase freedom of worship over freedom of religion. The two are not interchangeable at all.

a reply to: mOjOm

OK, this is the problem. It isn't about providing service. It's about being personally forced to partake in something that the Christian feels is a mockery of God.

Would you take a pig to a halal butchery and demand them to butcher it in halal fashion? No because to do so is to ask them do something that would be personally offensive to them and a mockery of their religious belief even if it isn't a part of your belief set.

Would you hold a black mass and go to a Catholic priest and demand him to officiate or in any way take part in it? No because to do so is to ask him to do something that would be personally offensive to him and mockery of his religious belief even if it isn't a part of your belief set.

So what makes it different when you have a Christian who believes that a marriage is a sacrament between man and woman in God's eyes? Why do you demand they personally take part in it to suit you even though for them to do so is for them participate in what they believe is a mockery of God.

Just to be crystal clear ... I could care less what gays do or even if they marry in their own ceremonies. I could even care less if some Christian denominations decide to carry out the ceremonies. What matters is whether or not people who object and find the ceremony offensive are forced to participate in that name of equality. That's where I get upset.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your argument isn't valid because:

Halal butchers wouldn't slaughter a pig for ANYONE. They don't slaughter pigs.
The Catholic priest doesn't perform Black Mass for ANYONE. They don't perform Black Mass.

Your argument would be valid for florists and bakers if they didn't do business with ANYONE getting married.

a reply to: ketsuko

??? and just what kind of federal taxes would that poor country church get zapped with??
it would be the local gov'ts and states that would tax their property
and well I kind of think that the only taxes the federal gov't would get would be on their PROFITS and possibly the social security on their employees depending on weather or not they are exempt from that now...

and well they could avoid taxes on their income by just devoting more of their profits into expenses and charity.

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that. But I'd like to understand exactly how it is offensive. It's a wedding like any other wedding except the sex of one of the people getting married. That's it. Calling it a Gay Wedding is even misleading and word play because in reality it's just a wedding. We don't call other weddings Straight weddings either, they're just weddings.

Aside from that there is a big double standard here. According to the Christian Religion there are other forms of marriage which should also be considered offensive but nobody cares about those. They are just selectively choosing parts of their Religion to follow and not others. Now, while this may only be a minor issue to some, to me it is a the red flag of hypocrisy which automatically makes their claim BS IMO. That is however, my opinion and I admit that. Maybe it's because I'm not Religious which makes me bias toward how I see that.

Lastly, it's my opinion that if you cater weddings or do flowers for weddings or something along those lines you should expect this kind of thing and if you can't handle it then don't do weddings. Just bake cakes or sell flowers without that part. Because people of all kinds get married and you may not morally agree with some of the weddings people have. I've been to weddings that are like themed that might offend some. There are weddings where the bride is pregnant. There are all sorts of weddings that for one reason or another someone might find offensive. But it's not about the people supplying the flowers or baking the cake is it??? No, it's about the bride and groom and their wedding day.

The person who runs a business is there to do business not preach about their religion. Nobody cares about the personal beliefs when you're there to simply do business. If you're a good baker or a good florist that is why I'm there. Not because you're a christian. That has nothing to do with your job or your skill and that is why I'm there and that is why you do business. So why is it so hard to keep your moral judgements to yourselves when it comes to other peoples lives??? So they don't have the same morality as you, so what??? I may not like their moral values either but I don't judge them for it, nor is it my business to. I'm there to purchase the service they offer and unless that service includes them judging my morality or how I choose to live my life, why can't they keep it to themselves??? Everyone else does and get's by just fine. Why does the rest of the world have to constantly tip toe around always worried about what someone else finds morally objective when it can easily be avoided since morality is personal thing for each one of us??

The Supreme court already went rogue with citizens united and that case where they said a city can take land for economic gain (I forget the official term).

I wonder why they're not passing a bill against corporations usurping human rights???