It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hawaiian-churches-denied-request-to-block-same-sex-civil-unions-66427/

"Though the new law exempted clergy from performing the ceremonies, it did not allow churches the right to refuse the use of their property for same-sex civil unions."

---

It's getting dark, people

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, the government is now forcing churches to allow church property to be used for homosexual services...not sure how many U.S. Constitution volations are being committed against this church...but I'm sure it is at last two.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A couple of questions.

1. Did these churches receive funding from the state for historical preservation or because they identify themselves as common spaces with free access? That's usually the backstory here. They take the money on those grounds.
2. Has anyone actually sued or tried to reserve these spaces? Or is this purely speculative, the churches pre-emptively suing to be allowed to deny access? Speaking from experience, people generally don't want to deal with wedding vendors who are only working with you under obligation of law.
3. Can a Jewish couple sue a Catholic church to force that church to host their wedding under non-discrimination laws?
4. If it comes to pass that the churches haven't taken money from the state on the grounds that they are public accommodations, then someone will surely legislate an exception from them.

There is no exemption for religious institutions, for churches, houses of worship from being subject to fines and to sanctions as provided in the legislation for refusing to allow their houses of worship to be desecrated through the use of a so-called 'civil union' ceremony.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/bills/GM1101_.PDF

I am sure the Forum will stand up in unionson (the outcry has already been deafening) to protest this obvious violation of freedom of religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Last I checked, churches aren't publicly owned, so they can't be forced to do anything. It's getting dark for conservatives because they keep drifting further into outer space with every over the top exaggeration they come up with.

according to U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, churche property is not immune...

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

...if I am reading this wrong, please restate what it is saying..

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wow, I thought this thread was about the blacks.......

The Atlas doesn't allow thread titles to be posted in Red, as in:

"It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals"

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The prospect of a same-sex civil union being held in a church against the will of the church's owners are as likely as the prospect of a Jewish couple compelling a privately-funded church to rent to them for their wedding: nil.

The judge pointed out that current law doesn't forbid it from happening. That's all. That doesn't mean that the series of unlikely events requiring it to happen, and without any change from the legislature, has a greater than 0% chance of coming to pass.  

They are hell bent to shut down churches that preach against homosexuality.  There are even gay political organizations which send homosexual couples into the services of churches and have them disrupt the service by prolonged kissing carousing in the pews, to the point that they are asked to leave.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/church-sues-after-being-terrorized-by-gay-kissing/2107/

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The prospect of a same-sex civil union being held in a church against the will of the church's owners are as likely as the prospect of a Jewish couple compelling a privately-funded church to rent to them for their wedding: nil.

The judge pointed out that current law doesn't forbid it from happening. That's all. That doesn't mean that the series of unlikely events requiring it to happen, and without any change from the legislature, has a greater than 0% chance of coming to pass.  

you really underestimate the depravity of homosexuals...for they are hell bent to shut down churches that preach against homosexuality.  There are even gay political organizations which send homosexual couples into the services of churches and have them disrupt the service by prolonged kissing carousing in the pews, to the point that they are asked to leave.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/church-sues-after-being-terrorized-by-gay-kissing/2107/

Certainly, someone who has been infracted as much as you understands that this post is pretty much the textbook definition of trolling, yes?

so, you don't believe it takes depravity to attend a church service for the sole reason to distrupt it with carousing?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think you understand that this conversation could have been had without you intentionally suggesting that gay people want orgies in churches, are "depraved" as a group, and news about them should be offered in "Flamer Red."

Hey, where's my religious exemption on the word choice of "depraved"?  But, I guess "inflamed" would have been a better choice than "flamer" and would have allowed a full religious exemption.

Rom 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

We've completely changed from discussing same-sex marriage to discussing the occasional protest in churches—kiss-ins and the like.

I only brought up the kiss-ins to show that church's who teach against homosexuality WILL be pressured to conduct these homosexual unions.  For, even though some gays don't want anything to do with church's that don't accept their actions, some gays are hell bent on shutting down these churches.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

We've completely changed from discussing same-sex marriage to discussing the occasional protest in churches—kiss-ins and the like.

I only brought up the kiss-ins to show that church's who teach against homosexuality WILL be pressured to conduct these homosexual unions.  For, even though some gays don't want anything to do with church's that don't accept their actions, some gays are hell bent on shutting down these churches.

It's possible that in the future that there will be culture pressure on archaic churches to change their ways and end their bigotry. The inertia of decades of intolerance will come to end at some point and these churches will slowly change. It has nothing to do with civil code or law but rather with culture that is changing rapidly with or without government action. You can do nothing to prevent this through the state, it's inevitable.

Oh, I have long known it is inevitable, and if you check my posting history (the few scraps the Mods have left for public consumption ), you'll find I have long admitted that very thing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Generally, these protests are not intended to "shut down churches." Usually it's a protest against the church's policies aimed at persuading them to change through embarrassment or to engage them. They are not looking to shut them down. Also, it takes much more than "we don't recognize same-sex marriage" to get attention like this.

these kiss-ins are going on all over the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32431213/ns/us_news-life/t/gay-kiss-ins-smack-mormon-church/

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/gay-activists-plan-kiss-in-for-popes-spain-visit.html

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/apr/24/vandals-break-windows-at-portland-church/

In fact, they been the topic of several staff meetings at our church over the last year and our security staff has been trained to handle it.

These people don't respect the freedom of religion, rather they want to destroy the freedom of religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think there may be some talking past each other here, and confusion as to what the nub of the issue is, confusion which I think I may share.

Is the gravamen of the complaint here, that the churches rent their space out for weddings, and thus if they say no to gay weddings, that is discrimination?  Surely, there would be no issue if the churches only had wedding ceremonies for their members, or which were performed by their own clergy, right?  

Assuming they do rent the space out to third parties, I think we have a close case here, with two rights in conflict (freedom of religious expression, and freedom from discrimination), which always makes it tough.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

basically, if the pastor is opposed to it, he is immune and can walk away...but the church itself is not immune if it doesn't allow it's facilities (chapel and/or reception hall) to be used, whether it be rented or otherwise.

so, if a church allows weddings and/or receptions to take place on church property, it would be in violation of the law for refusing to allow gay couples to use the facilities for gay unions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So the church must rent out its premises for ceremonies which it disapproves, even if the only ceremonies conducted there are for its own members, or where one of its own clergy is performing the ceremony, is that right?  If so, I think we do have a serious first amendment issue here, as well as a property rights issue. A church is not a public accommodation really. It is more in the nature of a private club it seems to me. It's troubling.

agreed.

---

As to a pastor being forced to perform ceremonies of which he disapproves, that is really ludicrous. Suppose as a lawyer, I refuse to represent gay clients. Am I guilty of discrimination?  I would assume not. Surely I have a right to spend my personal time in rendering services the way that I choose, no?  Anything less, and we seem to almost be in involuntary servitude territory.

None of this makes much sense to me. What am I missing?

No, the pastor is EXEMPT, he does NOT have to conduct the ceremony, but the church must allow its property to be used (I suppose another minister or judge would be brought in by the gay couple to perform the ceremony)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No I understood that the Pastor was exempt; what I was saying is that to not make him exempt, or for that matter myself exempt from having to represent gay clients, is facially ludicrous and unsustainable, and unconstitutional and on more than one ground, as I outlined.

got it.

---

we will soon begin to see the deep blue states use all the gay rights and hate crimes laws to attack the freedom of religion of the churches.  

understand, the vast majority of churches are not mega churches, rather they are very small.  they can't afford to be sued, they can't even afford to hire a trial lawyer.  so, from legal expense alone, churches will begin to close.

but, that's ok.  we'll just revert back to meeting in homes, as they did in NT times.

It's getting dark.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, read the article and your subject line is total crap - no church has been forced to have a civil union on their property. The churches that sued to stop the law were denied due to lack of standing specifically because nobody had tried to force them to have a civil union on their property. If someone actually tries to force them then they can have a lawsuit about it and the likely result will be that the churches win on first amendment grounds.

I understand they were trying to block the law a few days after the law came into effect.  But the fact is this law WILL be used to sue churches, and most churches are very small and don't have the means to even go to trial.

And since this law exempts pastors, but not churches, it leaves the churches totally exposed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That is why God invented appellate courts, so that once they set a precedent, rogue trial judges are leashed, and any such lawsuit will be thrown out upon the filing of a demurrer, because it fails to state a cause of action.  So I would not lose much sleep on that one. That Shockolow (sp?)  guy (the Jewish lawyer who went Baptist, and handles a lot of religious litigation, and has won cases for churches before SCOTUS), I sure will handle getting/setting the precedents pro bono.

bro, you, as a lawyer, should be aware that all these gay rights laws are nothing more than trogan horses...example:  

The civil union law just passed in Hawaii, which was pushed by gays, is now being challenged by gays at the federal level in a attempt to show that the civil union laws are discriminatory.  And Hawaiian Gov. Neil Abercrombie, is refusing to defend the state definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, in the which suit claims the new civil union law is unequal (basically the same type of suit in CA where the CA Supreme Court ruled the CA civil union law unconstitutional).

All the current battles are aimed at leveraging homosexuality to equal status.  Once that law (or ruling) is made, then it will be used to oppose freedom of religion, with the argument being that the declared equality of homosexuality trumps a church’s right to deny individual equality.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is your contention, but I am now satisfied based on the contents of this thread, that it has no merit

what are you talking about?  CA has already ruled their civil union laws unconstitutional, and now Hawaii is on course to do the same with the govenor refusing to defend the marriage definition that is on the books.

All it takes is a SCOTUS majority to make it so, as it did with Roe v. Wade.  Do you doubt that?

---

So, let's say, either by written law or by court ruling, gay marriage becomes the law of the land...do you REALLY think churches are going to be allowed to forbid gay marriages?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you need to read the texts that Dribble, BRTD and I put up about this again more closely. I don't think any of us want to get into broken record territory here.

You also vacillate between churches becoming gay bath houses with pets and the issue of the process by gay marriage is slowly becoming the law of the land. I think it fair to say that you are rather lonely here in your insistence on conflating the two.

Point 1) Tori, from the every first page of this thread, I never stated that a church was being sued on the basis on this new law.  Rather if you read from the beginning, I only took issue that the lawmakers took care to exempt clergy, but purposely did not exempt churches…therefore this law, even as interpreted by the US district judge, opened churches up to being sued.

You can check the posts yourself, as I have not gone back and edited them.  Also, while you are reading them, note those who attempted to say this was only in regard to church who had accepted public money, and also note that despite their false claims, my responded from 1) the article, 2) the judges ruling, 3) the pdf of the law as signed by the governor.

Point 2)  YOU were the one who didn’t read the article, thus you were confused by my posts because I do NOT post in a way that will be fully understood by those who didn’t read the article, rather my point of posting is to discuss the DETAILS of the article, ruling, and law.

---

So, now that we have taken care of the “slippery slopes”, let’s see who is standing on firm ground:

Question 1:  Do you deny the goal, whether by legislation or by court ruling, is homosexual marriage equality?

Question 2:  Do you not think, once homosexual marriage equality is reached, that the homosexual activists will not attempt to force churches to accept homosexuality?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, let's say, either by written law or by court ruling, gay marriage becomes the law of the land...do you REALLY think churches are going to be allowed to forbid gay marriages?!

Divorce is allowed the law of the land written by law, but do you know of any churches that don't approve of divorce that have been forced to marry divorcees? Interracial marriage marriage being allowed became the law of the land by court ruling in many places, but do you know of any churches that don't approve of interracial marriage that have been forced to marry an interracial couple?

no, I don't know of any.  Nor do I know of any kiss-ins by divorcés staged to disrupting Catholic Church services.  Nor do I know of any kiss-ins by interracial couples aimed by disrupting.

Some people, but obviously not all, are descent enough to respect the freedom of religion, even if they are offended by certain aspects of a particular religious viewpoint.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Question 2:  Do you not think, once homosexual marriage equality is reached, that the homosexual activists will not attempt to force churches to accept homosexuality?

Are womans rights activists attempting to force the Catholic Church to marry divorcees?

Some people, but obviously not all, are descent enough to respect the freedom of religion, even if they are offended by certain aspects of a particular religious viewpoint.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm a gay marriage activist. I'm not out there trying to force churches to accept gays; they have to do that from within. You don't really know much about us do you?

apparently, I know more than you think, as this is not even a new issue:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/aug/07082104

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Question 1:  Do you deny the goal, whether by legislation or by court ruling, is homosexual marriage equality?  Yes, as is their Constitutional right, and whose agenda I happen to agree with as a matter of public policy, as you well know.

well, at least on this point, you're not in denial.

---

Question 2:  Do you not think, once homosexual marriage equality is reached, that the homosexual activists will not attempt to force churches to accept homosexuality?  A few may, or professional anti-thesists, but they won't get very far, before the courts, or in the case of rogue trial judges, the appellate courts, slap them down.

we already concluded it only takes one case.  So what makes you think we're not 1 or 2, if any, new SCOTUS justices away from that day?

---

Are we done now? 

Yes, but I may recall you to the stand after I call Airmen O'Malley and Rodriguez of Andrews Air Base.