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

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

Absolutely. That is why I'm working with the Faith in Marriage group to allow the law here in Scotland to recognise gay marriage; these churches and faith groups are being disallowed from paracticing their belief, and their desire to solemnise gay marriages because of the law. The same is true for churches in the USA I am sure.

actually, there are NO LAWS forbidding homosexual marriage services in the USA.  It's just that the majority of states wont recognize these marriages.  But there are no cops standing in the shadows to arrest anyone attempting to "marry" a person of the same sex.

This is NOT a question of practice of gays, but of recognition.

---

How does having the state recognise gay marriage restrict the ability of religion to 'believe, practice, preach';?

does the NJ church in question have the right to stand on their own property during this homosexual service and preach against homosexuality?  Of course they don't, the state has declared they lost that right due to their 501c tax exemption.

---

does having easy divorce restrict the Catholic Church?

as I have pointed out several times in this thread - some groups have respect for the freedom of religion.

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

And all of which has been addressed more than once by myself and others. So we as per usual will just have to agree to disagree. Life will go on. Having said that, the notion that gay rights is a "trojan horse" to F with churches is just way, way out there. I would think most gays would think that forcing churches to host gay weddings and your host of horribles is simply bizarre, and certainly not what they want or desire. I bet if you put up a poll on this admittedly very gay friendly site, you would find almost unanimous agreement that churches should not be forced to host gay weddings. Really. Put it up and find out if you want.

doesn't matter what "most gays" think, as it has been clearly demonstrated that it only takes a few arseholes to dump on the freedom of religion through a lawsuit...but you, as a lawyer, seem to ignore that rulings are made based on INDIVUAL cases and the invisible "cases" of the majority of people who don't sue.

you, as a lawyer, seem to be arguing that nothing legally happens unless a majority of a group sue, and therefore you're asking me to whistle past the graveyard.  Then, when it does happen, you'll at first simply say, "Well, they didn't deserve tax exempt status in the first place"...then, when the lawsuits continue even after the 501c exemption has been revoked, you'll change your story and claim, "Well, they had no right to preach that to begin with."  And so you will be fine to have the state dictate what churches can believe, for you already believe the state's version of morality yourself.  

And you yourself will see no problem in denying the freedom of religion, the very pillar of this nation.

"...all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[© tweed]

yo jmf, why do you enjoy doing this for hours on end?

[Torie]

jmfcst, please listen to me. What I said was hardly what your describe, but rather that any such litigation that you so fear would be frivolous, and soon go away, and in particular  once we have appellate court precedents. To the extent it is not frivolous given the facts, such as that NJ campground case, the Church deserved to lose in all events, for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

[Torie]

yo jmf, why do you enjoy doing this for hours on end?

I am beginning to think that he is as stubborn as Bushie, and that's stubborn! 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, there is no Constitutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

regardless, 1) there is legal precedent for homosexuals suing a church for refusing to cater to homosexuals, and 2) there have been cases where the state came after the church for refusing to allow church property to be used for homosexual purposes, and 3) these "gay rights" have been used as a trojan horse to go after churches...basically, everything I have been saying.

j, as far as I am aware, those precedents all involved church owned properties that were being offered as public accommodations for non-church events.  If churches choose to get involved in activities that could be offered by private business, then they should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other private business would be subjected to.

That said, if a church or any private business or individual does not wish to rent their property to be used for some purpose, that should be their right.  By what right do we force people to give others access to their property?

[Torie]

Yes, there is no Constitutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

regardless, 1) there is legal precedent for homosexuals suing a church for refusing to cater to homosexuals, and 2) there have been cases where the state came after the church for refusing to allow church property to be used for homosexual purposes, and 3) these "gay rights" have been used as a trojan horse to go after churches...basically, everything I have been saying.

j, as far as I am aware, those precedents all involved church owned properties that were being offered as public accommodations for non-church events.  If churches choose to get involved in activities that could be offered by private business, then they should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other private business would be subjected to.

That said, if a church or any private business or individual does not wish to rent their property to be used for some purpose, that should be their right.  By what right do we force people to give others access to their property?

You think it right and proper that I should have the right to refuse to rent my houses or apartments to Democrats, or gays, or blacks, or Jews, or browns (if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)?  Actually, it is legal to refuse to rent to lawyers in CA. Yes it is. And I have a tenant from hell who is a lawyer. I learned my lesson! Don't rent to the bastards!

You know why in the end that won't fly don't you? It's because to demean and degrade whole classes of people that way, is just wrong and cruel, and bad for social comity and accord. It cannot stand. Property rights must give way. This balancing test is not a hard one. It just isn't.

We carve out an exception for churches when doing the religious thing, and private clubs (right of free association), because those are just not public accommodations, and the collateral damage is peripheral, and we do have a free exercise clause when it comes to religion. But that exception does need to be limited.

[opebo]

(if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)

What about if one of your renters was really 'in arrears' as they say.. would you consider taking your rent in.. 'a rears'?

[Torie]

(if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)

What about if one of your renters was really 'in arrears' as they say.. would you consider taking your rent in.. in 'a rears'?

You just such have such a consuming interest in my personal life don't you opebo? I'm flattered. But to answer your question, it would depend on the particular tenant. I am a fact specific kind of guy.

In general however, it is best to separate business from pleasure in my experience.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, if a church or any private business or individual does not wish to rent their property to be used for some purpose, that should be their right.  By what right do we force people to give others access to their property?

You think it right and proper that I should have the right to refuse to rent my houses or apartments to Democrats, or gays, or blacks, or Jews, or browns (if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)?

Yes.  Goldwater was right in 1964, at least in the ideal.  Ideally, the state should not be in the business of forcing individuals to not forgo profits in the name of access.  Of course in the ideal, the individuals that would choose to discriminate against doing business with particular groups would be both small enough in number and diverse enough that it would not unduly burden those groups.  That ideal can't really be said to pertain to blacks in 1964.

For instance, I dare say that if I didn't want to do business with any micks or guidos it would not be particularly troublesome for Irish- or Italian-Americans, but even without government action it would be troublesome for my business, as it should be.

I find it hard to believe that gay couples in Hawaii will have difficulties in finding a suitable location to celebrate their union, law or no law.

[Torie]

Well all I can say Ernest is that when I was refused service because I was ugly right after my face lift surgery at a restaurant (the only one open in Beverly Hills on a Jewish holiday), I was enraged. I was angry. I should have refused to leave and called 911 and the press, and then sued the restaurant's socks off. I'm quite sorry that I didn't. I should have made the restaurant my personal project for the public good, and unleashed my skills and my money on them. Putting aside the morality of it all (and on that we totally differ), as a prudential matter, do you want a lot of angry folks wandering around, because they feel demeaned, humiliated, and degraded? If you want to recruit shock troops for opebo's army, you have a most excellent plan to achieve that. Really.  When you treat folks like sh*t, you reap what you sow. We are still paying the price for well, what your state in particular did back when. Never again I say - never!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you're talking about the American Civil War, don't blame me.  My ancestors were up in Ontario at the time.

As for the restaurant, you can blame the surgery all you want for being refused service, but in that case the person to sue should have been the surgeon!

A society should not need to take all wrongs to court to correct them.  The press coverage alone or simple word of mouth would have punished the place, and business owners who make potential customers feel like sh*t are going to lose business.  Even without the lawsuits that were filed, Denny's and Cracker Barrel lost business because of the bad publicity that accusations of racial bias towards their customers have brought.

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

yo jmf, why do you enjoy doing this for hours on end?

I am beginning to think that he is as stubborn as Bushie, and that's stubborn!  

Then you'll find this fascinating...  (but, comparing me to Bushie is like comparing...)

Reviewing what we know, already from this thread:

1) gay right laws come into effect, being sold to the public on the assump ting they are seaking equality

2) suits have been brought based upon gay rights, against church rights and church property rights, that state gay rights TRUMP the rights of churches...this is the standing federal case law

3) Case law has already declared that the 501c tax exemption places churches 1st and 5th amendment rights BELOW gay rights

now, take a look at the law written in Hawaii:

1) it explicitly exempts members of the clergy from this law.  Why are clergy exempt?  Because members of the clergy do NOT have a 501c tax exemption, rather they pay taxes like any individual.  Therefore members of the clergy can take full use of their 1st amendment rights.

2) the law does NOT exempt churches , rather churches must follow the law.  Why are churches NOT exempt? Because churches are 501c entities, therefore, as has been stating in the standing federal case law, churches' 1st and 5th amendment rights can be trumped.

so, you can see the law in Hawaii iis ALREADY written with the knowledge that federal case law states that churches are NOT exempt due to their rights being weakened by their tax exemption...hence the title of this thread - this law seeks to force churches to conduct homosexual services.

This isn't the jmfcst going off half cocked.  Rather, this is a done deal.  The are LEGIONS of lawyers all over the country preparing for this battle, and the battle lines have already been drawn and the victor has already been declared.  Both sides know EXACTLY how this is going to be fought.

Those familiar with how the battle is to be fought, understand point blank the language of this bill in Hawaii.

---

And now, here's the part you'll find interesting...churches which preach against homosexuality have been repeatedly warned by legal advisors to prepare to survive without their 501c tax exemption.   Churches in debt have been warned to get out of debt, ASAP.

In the case of my church, we issued bonds last summer to church members in order to raise funds to pay off the church's bank note.  The bank note was paid off and the bonds were secured, not by church property, but by the signature of a single trustee - the jmfcst.

So, as of the middle of last year, our church owns it's property free and clear and is totally without collateralized debt - the jmfcst has assumed all responsibility for the churches debt in case the church defaults on its bonds, which will be paid off by the Summer of 2015.  This will allow our church, when the time comes when gay rights are enacted or declared in force by the courts, to be able to survive without a 501c tax exemption.

[LastVoter]

why not just accept the gays in your church jmfcst, life would be so much simpler.

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

why not just accept the gays in your church jmfcst, life would be so much simpler.

this life?

1Cor 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."


---

This isn't the jmfcst going off half cocked.  Rather, this is a done deal.  The are LEGIONS of lawyers all over the country preparing for this battle, and the battle lines have already been drawn and the victor has already been declared.  Both sides know EXACTLY how this is going to be fought.

to clarify - the church will lose this court battle.  we will be shut down and be forced to go underground.

[Joe Republic]

to clarify - the church will lose this court battle.  we will be shut down and be forced to go underground.

[LastVoter]

why not just accept the gays in your church jmfcst, life would be so much simpler.

this life?

1Cor 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."


---

This isn't the jmfcst going off half cocked.  Rather, this is a done deal.  The are LEGIONS of lawyers all over the country preparing for this battle, and the battle lines have already been drawn and the victor has already been declared.  Both sides know EXACTLY how this is going to be fought.

to clarify - the church will lose this court battle.  we will be shut down and be forced to go underground.

Nobody is forcing the church to do anything. I am sure that evangelical churches also opposed Civil Rights and black people using their buildings.

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

No. The Church Visible is not an oppressed group. There's a sense of course in which the Church is always oppressed but that is not the Church to whose star you've hitched your wagon. That Church is, in this country, at this time, defined by being complicit with Pharaonic power. If you don't understand what this means, accept it for what it is yet not stop contending against it, and understand that no matter how big a self-fetishizing martyr complex you've got yourself into you are still speaking from a position of sociopolitical strength, which has always been and will always be the wrong way for the Church of God to speak in this world, you are not fit to be a Christian.

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

The same way that churches are hell bent on executing the gays, huh? Come out of the closet, dude. You must think an awful lot about two dudes doing it to really care so much.

[Brittain33]

You guaranteed your church's finances because you anticipate it being sued into oblivion by gays?

[Ebowed]

The press coverage alone or simple word of mouth would have punished the place, and business owners who make potential customers feel like sh*t are going to lose business.

That's adorable, and I'm sure that the blacks who were unable to stay in hotels in Mississippi during Jim Crow would love to converse with you about the virtues of unregulated enterprise.

[John Dibble]

jmfcst, please listen to me. What I said was hardly what your describe,

The jmfcst does not wish to listen to you, as that would imply the jmfcst values your opinions and perspectives. The jmfcst is above that. The jmfcst feels that it is far better to set up straw men and preach the jmfcst's paranoid delusions at them.

[Purch]

This is a bit extreme to force upon a Church... And I haven't even been too one in years

[Brittain33]

jmf, same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 8 years.

It should be easy for you to find news of a church being sued for refusal to host a same-sex wedding. We have a robust anti-discrimination law on the books.

Isn't it getting dark in Massachusetts? Where's the goods?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The press coverage alone or simple word of mouth would have punished the place, and business owners who make potential customers feel like sh*t are going to lose business.

That's adorable, and I'm sure that the blacks who were unable to stay in hotels in Mississippi during Jim Crow would love to converse with you about the virtues of unregulated enterprise.

I'm talking about the situation today, not that of Mississippi under Jim Crow.  In an ideal world, government intervention should not be required.  I recognize that the world is not ideal, but I place the burden upon those who say that government intervention in private decisions is desirable to show why.  Just because something was desirable in 1962 does not mean it is still desirable fifty years later.