by oneyeopen 118 Replies latest social current
Alpha,
I agreed with you stance, as I believe it is constitutionally supported. I told you so yesterday. I'm one of the happiest most well adjusted - and blessed - people on the planet. I'm intolerant of haters and hate speech because of the damage it has done. The time for kind words has passed. If that comes across as angry, mission accomplished.
Yesterday, I tried supporting both the gay rights, and not forcing Christian Pastors to marry same sex couples if their conscience was against it
No Christian Pastor, in his or her capacity as a pastor, has to do that today.
If you think some of us are hostile, try this, haters: Go in a public forum and say some of the dumbass things you haters have said about the new CEO of Apple. Go ahead. Make my day. If you think we are raining down ridicule on your sorry dumb asses, you haven't seen anything yet.
It is past time to move beyond old scrolls and the hatred they have incited and the damage they have caused. Look inside of your hearts haters. Find out why you want to hang on to the darkness.
No Christian Pastor, in his or her capacity as a pastor, has to do that today.
.
Yes....I think the story was determined to be mainly about a couple of for profit wedding chapel ministers maybe refusing to marry a same sex couple. Of course, a public business cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexuality, etc. I think it them morphed into a discussion where someone named MASH keep bashing me for not agreeing that Pastors should be forced to marry gay people. It turned quite ugly, even to the point that my using the expression "gay people" was some kind of admittance to homophobia. I actually support ""gay people" having their rights, but I must admit there is a lot of hostility even towards people who are supportive. That will not be good for the gay rights cause going forward.
I think it them morphed into a discussion where someone named MASH keep bashing me for not agreeing that Pastors should be forced to marry gay people.
It started out with the OP claiming pastors were being forced to marry gays or face jail time, which you thought was true (since you wrote "don't those city officials have anything better to do than threaten Christian Pastors with jail time for politely declining to marry same sex people?").
You in fact DO apparently support discrimination, because in that same post you ALSO wrote "I can see maybe enforcing a public wedding chapel business to treat everyone equal, but to force individuals to go against their bible beliefs is just wrong in this country."
The government disallows people from practicing all sorts of biblically approved behavior. The problem is that there is no coherent argument against equal rights for gay people that could not be equallly applied to black persons or women.
You in fact DO apparently support discrimination, because in that same post you ALSO wrote "I can see maybe enforcing a public wedding chapel business to treat everyone equal, but to force individuals to go against their bible beliefs is just wrong in this country."
.
What is wrong with this statement? Enforcing a public business to not discriminate against same sex couples, and not forcing private denomination Pastors to marry same sex couples against their conscience? I'm thinking DJS is stating the same thing.
This whole deal is a stunt. It's Plan B by the Christian right for god's sake.
Read the article........ get informed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/gay-marriage-jail_n_6044214.html
"However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.
"Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines." First of, I believe that gay and lesbian people should most definitely have every right that any other citizen of this country is allowed. I mentioned what I heard on Rush Limbaughs show because I thought it was pertinent to this discussion. I never said that I endorsed it! But JeffT says that I shouldn't comment when I don't know what Rush Limbaugh said. Tell me Jeff, just what did Rush Limbaugh say?
Viviane tells me that no one is being forced to do anything that is against their religion. Now, I am not an intellectual, I didn't even graduate from high school (why bother, Armeggedon is going to be here any day now). I am told that the article in question only applies to The Hitching Post. They are a business, NOT a religion.
But, read this line again, the very first paragraph of the article in discussion:
"Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines." Okay, I'm a dumbass, I admit it, but doesn't that article plainly say, "Christian Pastors within their community"? Indicating religions/churches beyond The Hitching Post?
Aren't they using The Hitching Post as an example to send a message to churches that they better fall in line, or else?
I know Viviane will say, "So what? What if they do?"
Well, if they do, they do. Then churches and pastors will simply use clandestine techniques in order to skirt the law. If churches don't know how to go about that, they should contact the Watchtower Society. WT knows all about those little tricks!
But, read this line again, the very first paragraph of the article in discussion:
@apostrate, that's simply the way the writer of the news piece decided to explain the issue. It doesn't mean the law actually tries to do that. Journalists often try to position things in the most controversial way possible as to draw the most attention to the article.
It is not possible for a law to force a religious movement to accept homosexuality, since this would infringe on their religious rights. What is being done here is to simply make sure that a business doesn't discriminate between people. The business just happens to be a wedding chappel run by two people who call themselves pastors, but in the eyes of the law, it's just a business and two businesss owners.
Let's go s-l-o-w-e-r.
The Washington Times is a right wing rag founded by the Rev. Moon. The article was not vetted and its intention was to stir the right wing Xtian fundies. Idaho has no intention and no legal rights to force religions to do anything at this point. The Hitching Post is a commercial business. The Rev trying to skirt the law and file for religious protection the day before the law went into effect is a scam. Look at their website. It is a business. The Rev may ultimately succeed in becoming a religion. God knows we have a lot of dumb ass religions based on pretty much nothing, so the Rev's chances are good. The IRS will likely begin targeting him, but that's another story.
The Constitution, according to the US Supreme Court, does not give commercial businesses the freedom to discriminate, and few if any courts have ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis. This isn't complicated.
