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

[LastVoter]

jmfcst, here's an incident that happened around 2003 or so with the vocalist of a Christian hardcore band. He later apologized for it, but like 5 years later. And btw he is heterosexual and married.

He went to a Mass at the Catholic Church he was baptized and confirmed in wearing a hoodie. During communion he followed up and took a wafer. He threw the wafer to the ground and stomped on it, and then removed his hoodie revealing a shirt with an image of two guys kissing. He then threw some pamphlets to the ground about following Jesus and not religion and walked out.

Do you disapprove of that? Would you be offended if he did so at a Mormon church? Remember that unlike the Mormons he is a Christian.

I am honestly surprised you would know about Mars Hill.

They have good music. It's too bad the church is so vile and Driscoll is a nutjob, because I really like their music.

Yea it is, quite a taint on Seattle, it's also quite misogynistic
For those that don't know:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/02/mars_hill_pastor_mark_driscoll_faces_backlash_over_church_discipline_case_.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah we have a similar church in Michele Bachmann's district: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/09/07/elk-river-churchs-practices-stirs-controversy

A girl I know at my church now started going there in high school and basically got shunned by all her friends there after she left.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW I have made polls about Mars Hill before:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148363.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=144643.0

[Torie]

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.

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.

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?

[John Dibble]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

If a church is already renting out its facilities or granting their use otherwise to a couple getting married (or civil union-ed) but not married in the church in a spiritual sense, then what difference does it make? Or are the churches in question seeking to avoid renting the space to any couple who would be ineligible for marriage in that church (in the spiritual sense)? I would assume that some random couple off the street who are not members of the church cannot simply walk into a church and demand to use its facilities, right?

Assuming this is the case, in my eyes any marriage conducted outside of the Church (in the spiritual sense) being conducted in the church (in the physical sense) bothers me. I do find the idea of the government stepping in and requiring a church to rent out its space to someone for an activity against the church's teachings bothersome, but not that awfully worse than the idea of someone using the church for a wedding not in the Church (in the spiritual sense) to begin with, absent some sort of agreement with another church with some kind of relationship between the churches.

It does seem like this thread has really deviated from the issue at hand quite a bit, and the thing that really bothers me about the responses in here was that there seems to be a desire on some levels to attack churches in general or attempt to strip away federal funding on extraneous things to change doctrine, thereby creating a system where the government will fund some religious groups but not others on the basis of what the group's religious beliefs are rather than what the funding is for, or to remove tax-exempt status from religious organizations because they disagree with the religion's teachings or other threads in which people have advocated abolishing non-public schooling. Essentially, I understand the government is not an instrument capable or willing to solve many of the social problems churches have with their members no longer believing in or following church teachings, but passionately dispise any attempt to use the government as a tool to destroy organized religion or make it more difficult for parents to raise their children in the faith or make it such that those who do still practice a religious faith that many now find politically objectionable are quarantined from society so that society will simply wait for all of us to die off broken and isolated as the obsolete victims of the unyielding arc of "social progress".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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.

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?

You're missing basically close to everything. What happened here was two churches suing to block THE ENTIRE CIVIL UNIONS LAW on this rather contrived and unprecedented claim. Dibble summed it up best here:

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.

[Torie]

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.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

And yes BRTD, to try to overturn a law on first amendment grounds because of some assumed application of the chamber of horrors posited, which has not happened and will not happen, and even if it did happen, SCOTUS could just trim back the scope of the law so that it does not force a Church to host a satanic sadomasochist wedding. 

Btw, when this nice LDS couple knocked on my door to urge me to vote against Prop 8, their main rap was this forcing churches to host gay weddings thing. I could not get them to explain coherently how all of that will "work" to get to this sad state of affairs, but now I guess that I know. It really does not "work," at all, except in the eye of the paranoid who just have no understanding of how the law actually works, and really have no interest in knowing, and are just trying to frighten people.

And so it goes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

You're trusting jmfcst as an unbiased source giving the full story on this type of issue?

[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)

[Torie]

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.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

You're trusting jmfcst as an unbiased source giving the full story on this type of issue?

No not really, but then I didn't see a post from his "opposition" that just put him away, until Dribble and yourself responded to my little whimperings. Why did you wait so long?  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

You're trusting jmfcst as an unbiased source giving the full story on this type of issue?

No not really, but then I didn't see a post from his "opposition" that just put him away, until Dribble and yourself responded to my little whimperings. Why did you wait so long? 

I was somewhat caught up in responding to his rants about the "kiss-ins", which of course have absolutely nothing to do with what he is talking about here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I will note jmfcst did not respond to my point about Mormons not being Christian or that Christians too do such things in other churches...

[Torie]

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 cermony. (I'll go back and reread my previous post to make sure I didn't confuse you.)

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

and no one is proposing any changes to that. It is a total strawman.

[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.

[Simfan34]

While I share jmfcst's concerns, are gay people going to request to have ceremonies in unwilling churches en masse for purely antagonistic reasons? I don't think so. However this is exactly what my main worry about gay marriage- trying to forcibly break the bonds of civil marriage and religious marriage.

And no, Jmfcst, you're not going to get any sympathy from the anticlerical-progressive group here.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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.  

We've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 8 years. It's been a decade since the collapse of the Catholic Church's influence in state government.

Why haven't we seen anything like what you've described?

The only group closing churches down against the will of their members are the Catholic hierarchy. (see the vigils.)

[Torie]

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.

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

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.

In addition, there are a number of larger Christian/church groups that also would be quite happy to furnish a team of lawyers without charge to a small church getting sued for such a thing, much in the same way that the ACLU does pro bono work for individuals.

[Torie]

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, beyond perhaps at the beginning, some litigation to leash those whose primary mission in life is anti-theism.

[afleitch]

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.

Why should churches above all other institutions be allowed to deny individual equality? Afterall, religion is a choice.

[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?!