City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

about the same as denying a spouse the right to see their partner on their death bed.... which is much worse then this,,, just shows it can go to far both ways

 

The Constitution is pretty straightforward. If the city law is interpeted to force ministers through prosecution-- to conduct a ceremony that they consider is against God--then the law goes against our basic constitution. The constitution prohibits government from treading on the rights of our citizens and doens't restrict those rights to be relevant only behind church doors.

 

No, they can't. A business cannot refuse to serve Jews, or whites, or blacks, or Rotarians. Look it up.

 

I think same gender marriage should be 100% legal, and that will end a lot of the things you refer to

things like this will work themselves out in court, they wont have to fight as long as same gender couples have been fighting for their rights, we can be sure of that

I think artistic talent should be excluded, example, if I paint people for a living, I should not be force to paint people or things I do not feel like painting, if I was forced, it would only be a half-azed effort... so why bother

 

Most of the legal brothels are not open to the public, they are for members only (pardon the pun). Just like a country club or a church they can legally discriminate. You have to be sponsored or referred.

They may have black clients but they can be much more selective in the process. They can also only put girls up in the common area who will have sex with individuals of color if that is a personal preference or not. I wouldn't doubt it if there was a monitor in the entryway (the cashiers station) and the girls give a nod if they will or won't service a particular client. They also have to be inspected by the girl and if there is noticeable lesions or sores, or if they are acting inappropriately or too drunk or on something, they can refuse to participate in any sexual activity with them as well.

Having sex is a little different than baking a cake with two guys on the top.

 

Civil Union/Gay Marriage/Marriage, they are all contracts. It is the same as car/limousine they are both automobiles just different kinds.

 

They agree to obey the laws when they accept a business license. They are subject to losing the license or being prosecuted for failure to comply, just like you are when you get a drivers license. If they don't want to follow the law, they have the option of making their business a members only business or to become a Church. They are neither at this point. I would suggest that they become a private members only business, like a country club or a church is, so they can have a little more control over who they offer services too. Just a matter of classification. Not that difficult.

 

then the law is baseless if that is the case. The city would then need to prove that engaging in homosexual sex isn't anything more than a choice.

I have not seen 1 medical test to demonstrate that one is "born liking gay sex"

 

I didn't legalize or claim anything, that is what the law says and the courts agree with. But like I did say, they registered for a business license and agreed to follow the law in doing so. Ergo, the business cannot discriminate because of the owner personal hatred or proclivity. According to the law they are the ones discriminating.

 

The constitution doesn't classify inalienable rights according to whether a person is in business or acting in private. I suggest you make sexual orientation an inalienable right and get that in the Constitution before you start sending government to prosecute people based on their religious beliefs..

 

there is an inalienable right-to-life but the left has forsaken that when it comes to the unborn child.

 

They are a business not a non-profit place of worship that is a different matter if they ran a church, with a ministry and met all the requirements of a place of worship then largely they can do as they wish fully protected by the 1st Amendment. If they were ministers without a church but it wasn't a business say they just performed marriages for free or a customary tip in cash likely again safely under the 1st Amendment.

This is different its a business if they don't want to perform said marriages contact some others that would, and they don't have to, as a Universal Life Church Atheist ordained with some titles I would gladly do it if I lived there for a cash payment on site say $100. But if they refuse to accommodate gays its clearly a city violation of the local ordinance if they were Christians and ran a McDonalds they would need to follow the ordinance this is just another business to me. So accommodate the law or close or get fined and go to jail.

 

Again, I didn't create the law, just interpreting it the way the government and the courts have and do. You do realize the USSC doesn't even see this as an issue?

To be honest with you, as well as protecting people of color, many of these laws were first created in the 1960's to protect authority figures like police officers, members of the military and religious affiliated groups and this is what they have morphed into. I would suggest that you study the history of discrimination laws and be careful what you wish for, it may come back to bite you in the ass.

 

I am not quite sure that this specific issue relates to the religious freedom part of the Constitution. They can designate themselves a religious organization if they want that protection.

 

Jesus never addressed homosexuality, just those who are able to procreate. One fourth of gays are Christians and half go to church, so I doubt many want to mock Christianity. Those who do mock are most likely activists who are tired of fundamentalists calling them abominations.

 

I did not know discrimination was a jailable offense.

 

This is what I was dreading. I have gay friends who know that I disagree with their lifestyle, and by that I mean that I would never participate in it. That being said, I still wrote to one of my U.S. Senators warning that if this whole issue proceeded without a definition of marriage in place, that this entire thing was going to get ugly really fast. And this is all happening like clockwork. The queers have won their day in court, but they still have not won the war because you can't have a true marriage without a pastor who is willing to participate. And even then, how relevant is the pastor who goes against the very religion that he is supposed to represent? Even in these pastors' case, just how credible are they as pastors if they are running a for-profit church "house" or whatever it is?

A "marriage" without a true pastor or other religious figure presiding over it amounts to nothing more than a Vega$ wedding, minus Elvis of course.

 

Everyone does realize I hope that unless you are in an 'open' marriage that it is all SAME SEX night after night after night....

Polygamy rights are next, just wait and see as how can this be denied?

 

liberals want to abolish religion or greatly reduce its influence in society so to get rid of the moral compass it provides so they can perform their perverted immoral behavior without being judged and looked down upon

- - - Updated - - -

then bestiality, then pedophilia

 

NO ONE is required to marry people that do not comply with their faith.

The Wedding Chapel provides the site and trimmings for a wedding. If this guy running the business advertises weddings and is pat of the state's justice of peace then they may require wedding license, which that and two witnesses is all that is needed to be a wedding..

But NO ONE has to perform a religious marriage.

 

The ministers are not being forced that can hire someone who will do them and c comply e with the law. Simple.

 

Indeed. However, both people capable of marrying others are ordained ministers. Whether they perform the marriages in a church or in a different atmosphere, in the end, they are both ordained ministers. First Amendment trumps the city.

 

I want to abolish YOUR religion and its reduced its influence in society so as to get rid of the corrupt and poisonous "moral compress" that has made our country so perverted and deadly.

But it would be lovely if more people would choose positive religions and "moral compasses", such as Christianity (as professed by Jesus Christ, for instance), to have make the world a better place.

 

Are you telling me you don't see this as a growing trend?

The fact that there is a government that feels this is within their authority should be concerning for everyone. People that run our governments – local and national – take an oath to support and defend the constitution. It’s hugely disconcerting to me that so many that run our governments are so willing to violate that oath so easily and blatantly.

 

If a Christian walks into a gay owned printing business and wants literature printed up like pamphlets stating being gay is a sin and the bible verses saying just that the gay owned printing shop by law would then be required to do so correct? is that is the type of society you want to live in that you are forced to go against your beliefs religious or not or be called a bigot if you don't