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

[Brittain33]

I'm with brittain on this one; why does such an exemption need to be codified? Do Catholic churches regularly get hit by lawsuits because a divorcee wants to use the chapel hall for her wedding?

This is a question that I'm eager for jmfcst to answer. How often are churches required to host weddings they don't recognize?

The only exception I know is of an oceanfront pavilion in Ocean Grove, NJ that took substantial state funds for restoration, claiming they were a public space and public accommodation, but which then tried to cite religious reasons for excluding same-sex couples.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case

[krazen1211]

 “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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

[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?

[opebo]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

About what?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

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."

[Redalgo]

I'm feeling too lazy this morning to research what the current condition of the law is on this but:

1. Taxpayer funds should never be given to religious groups discriminating against homosexuals.
2. I do not think any house of worship should ever be forced to perform ceremonies by the state.
3. The state should offer facilities and personnel to conduct marriages/unions churches refuse to.
4. A church with orgies and a gay bathhouse would probably be epic but, alas, I don't believe.

[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."

[Brittain33]

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."

We've completely changed from discussing same-sex marriage to discussing the occasional protest in churches—kiss-ins and the like. That should get its own thread because it's separate from the push for same-sex marriage and is a fringe event that's usually led by members of the church protesting specific church policies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd have no problem with seeing gay couples kiss in my church. I mean it's no worse than all the heterosexual couples doing the impromptu backrub thing (which I don't have a problem with) or women with babies setting up for an impromptu breastfeeding (which I also don't have a problem with, and in fact wish would happen MORE often!)

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Good: if a church gets a special status, it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Naturally, this won't be an issue 99.9% of the time because no gay couple is going to request to get a civil union at the Holy Bigot Center of Town X but because we are a nation of laws and codes, it should be set in stone that our government has the duty to ensure that no civil marriage is denied because of a hateful proclivity. The religious/ceremonial part of marriage will never be infringed upon, as it should be but the civil aspect needs to be defended rigorously.

[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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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."

Your book of millennia old myths and history of Jewish law is irrelevant to this discussion. Quite simply: I don't care what your justification for bigotry is, piss off. It's bigotry just the same and it has no place in our civil codes and needs to be whitewashed just as segregation needs to be wiped out of any code.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

[Yelnoc]

Why don't we cut the churches a deal?  You can have your orientation-exclusive services if you start paying taxes.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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.

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

Why do you want to use the state to impose your narrow religious views on the masses then? Why not just preach against gay marriage and homosexuality in general in the streets + be active against any hate speech laws? I don't understand the negative activity on gay marriage when it is explicitly civil marriage and doesn't infringe upon the sanctity of marriage given to man by God.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This reminds me of the time I saw a show in an American Legion with a band that had one song with lots of lyrics "F**k the red, white and blue" and went on between songs about the evils of the Iraq War. Or when I saw a Christian band play at a venue with a banner making fun of Jesus on the wall where Disembodied was headlining.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's see:

-Mormons, who are specifically targeted for more than just opposing gay marriage and who aren't even Christian anyway. Seriously jmfcst why would you care? Would be offended by "kiss-ins" in mosques?
-The Pope visiting. Not just some random church that preaches against homosexuality.
-Mars Hill, which is basically known for trying to push anti-gay politics amongst a normally progressive set.

So yeah, proves brittain's point. I find it hilarious jmfcst would bring up a MORMON church of all things as an example of Christians being targeted lol. jmfcst do you have a problem with Christians protesting Mormon churches like this?

[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.

[LastVoter]

Let's see:

-Mormons, who are specifically targeted for more than just opposing gay marriage and who aren't even Christian anyway. Seriously jmfcst why would you care? Would be offended by "kiss-ins" in mosques?
-The Pope visiting. Not just some random church that preaches against homosexuality.
-Mars Hill, which is basically known for trying to push anti-gay politics amongst a normally progressive set.

So yeah, proves brittain's point. I find it hilarious jmfcst would bring up a MORMON church of all things as an example of Christians being targeted lol. jmfcst do you have a problem with Christians protesting Mormon churches like this?

I am honestly surprised you would know about Mars Hill.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.