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

[Torie]

I like how you concede the 'political power of the Christian community' when it doesn't benefit you to play the victim.

Yes,  in my world I just review the applicable statutes and regulations, and if the law is clear, swing the bureaucrats my way, per well, persuasion, rather than unleashing the hounds to well, hound. If unclear, well that is why God invented administrative tribunals and courts and all (which in fact would have a wider benefit, because then precedents are set, making what was once unclear, more clear, on which others can rely for guidance). The common law is a beautiful thing really. We each live on our own little planets I guess.

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

whoever advised your church that homosexual rights were going to lead to loans being called in on churches was either dishonest or very naive.

you've obviously never attempted to take out a bank loan for a church...bank loans to churches are NOT easy to come by, to say the least.  most banks don't do them, and the ones that do just do it on the side as a service to the community.

---

Nothing you've said in the past has disturbed me, but knowing that you and your congregation have convinced yourself that because I'm married, I'm going to knock down your church and seize the land for the state, and therefore it's ok to war against me as the enemy, is just poor.

we're simply taking steps to get into a position where our freedom of religion rights are not watered down by present and future 501c and FDIC regulations.  It's not like we're preparing to sue in order to gain usage of property owned by the gay community, nor are we going to sue for the right to work in a gay organization.

we're simply taking steps to make sure we can continue to have the freedom to believe what we want, to preach what we want, control the practices on our church property, and to choose who we want doing church work. 

Heck, even now the board of trusties (myself and two others) have the legal authority to fire our pastor in the event he falls off the turnip truck, though we don't expect we'll ever need to fire him, he's been the pastor of our church since 1979.  But we have the power to replace him, if necessary.  And the other two trusties have the legal authority to kick me off the board if needed.   We have checks and balances throughout our system. That doesn't make us unstable, rather the intent of the checks and balances is to keep a single individual from having the power to control our church.

Likewise, the steps we've taken so that we won't have to rely on 501c and/or a loan from an FDIC bank, are aimed at protecting our rights in order to keep outside groups from taking control of our church.

There's nothing disturbing or scary about it.

[John Dibble]

whoever advised your church that homosexual rights were going to lead to loans being called in on churches was either dishonest or very naive.

you've obviously never attempted to take out a bank loan for a church...bank loans to churches are NOT easy to come by, to say the least.  most banks don't do them, and the ones that do just do it on the side as a service to the community.

Which is probably because most small churches are not big money makers and so it isn't a sound investment for the bank to make and not having anything to do with homosexuality or any other particular religious belief.

If you are worried about churches being denied loans or having their loans called in because of anti-discrimination laws, you should also note that anti-discrimination laws prevent religious discrimination at well. Or do you have some evidence suggesting that those anti-discrimination laws are going to be repealed?

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

Which is probably because most small churches are not big money makers and so it isn't a sound investment for the bank to make and not having anything to do with homosexuality or any other particular religious belief.

If you are worried about churches being denied loans or having their loans called in because of anti-discrimination laws, you should also note that anti-discrimination laws prevent religious discrimination at well. Or do you have some evidence suggesting that those anti-discrimination laws are going to be repealed?

most church loans are a weird thing...they have to be renewed every five years and the church has to go through the process all over again.  So any changes to the law and/or a banks willingness to continue to make church loans, may impact renewal of said loans.  We simply took a completely defensive move to eliminate any of those possibilities. 

And I find it ironic some of you call our moves to cut ties with the FDIC and 501c "extreme" and "disturbing", when many of you are the same ones who complain about church "privilege".  You don't want the government favoring the freedom of religion, let you're disturbed when a church takes purely defensive moves not to have its freedom waterdowned by government strings.

[Brittain33]

I'm disturbed because you're attributing nefarious motives and intent to me to come destroy your lives when nothing like that has any relation to what I have as a goal in my life.

You're casting me as the villain in your story. I don't care if that's the case in scripture, that's for you and other Christians to work out. I'm disturbed that you're casting me in that role in our secular world.

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

I'm disturbed because you're attributing nefarious motives and intent to me to come destroy your lives when nothing like that has any relation to what I have as a goal in my life.

You're casting me as the villain in your story. I don't care if that's the case in scripture, that's for you and other Christians to work out. I'm disturbed that you're casting me in that role in our secular world.

how did you pull yourself into this picture?  are you also personally offended by the totally defensive nature of the locks on the doors of my house?

[Badger]

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."



They really of course want to attack Christianity.

"We" do? I'll remember that when the family and I go to church next time.


Self-parody reached, brosef.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The government has no authority to do what is being done in question. First there's the obvious property rights violation going on. If a church owns that property the government is in trouble for days on this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The government has no authority to do what is being done in question.

The only thing being done in question is recognizing same sex civil unions, which certainly is within the authority of the government.

First there's the obvious property rights violation going on. If a church owns that property the government is in trouble for days on this.

The government is not infringing on any church's property rights. You might want to actually read the article.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I did read and I stick with what I said. Remember when it's a direct vote of the people gay marriage always loses. When it's in the hands of judges and legislatures it gets a bit shifty.
If the people had a direct say on this one, traditional marriage and gay marriage bans will win.

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I did read and I stick with what I said. Remember when it's a direct vote of the people gay marriage always loses. When it's in the hands of judges and legislatures it gets a bit shifty.
If the people had a direct say on this one, traditional marriage and gay marriage bans will win.

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

No. Anywhere from 31-4 to 35-0 Indiana in 2014.

[Donerail]

I did read and I stick with what I said. Remember when it's a direct vote of the people gay marriage always loses. When it's in the hands of judges and legislatures it gets a bit shifty.
If the people had a direct say on this one, traditional marriage and gay marriage bans will win.

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

Funny, I thought 53% was greater than a majority, such as one would need to legalize something, and 47% was less. Based on these polling trends, y'all are on the wrong side of history (and those who oppose it will be remembered essentially the same as Thurmond, Wallace, and all those guys back in the 1960s).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I did read and I stick with what I said. Remember when it's a direct vote of the people gay marriage always loses. When it's in the hands of judges and legislatures it gets a bit shifty.
If the people had a direct say on this one, traditional marriage and gay marriage bans will win.

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

The law in Hawaii does not involve gay marriage.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

Doesn't matter, since the trend is clearly toward 0-50 for your side by judicial fiat. Grats!

[Torie]

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

Doesn't matter, since the trend is clearly toward 0-50 for your side by judicial fiat. Grats!

Beware of hubris (goes the other way too for the 32-0 citing guy). Sure, pocket it, but don't brag about it. That is not the way gay marriage should become the law of the land. It can be secured the right way, with just a bit more patience, as more and more gays come out of the closet, and one generation is gradually replaced by another. Just my opinion anyway. I suspect on this one, Boomers are the break point. We tend to think more like the youngs than the olds is my perception.

[Person Man]

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

...or the fact that now only a plurality of our larvae are white?