Iowa Mennonites sue Civil Rights comm. over their religion vs homosexual mandate

Those who know no God don't really care.

 

I fail to see the preferential treatment for homosexuals. The law in question is against discrimination on grounds of sexuality. If someone was offering gay marriages but not straight ones, they'd be equally guilty. Similarly, if they refused to provide services to people of a particular gender, religion or race, they'd also be open to legal action. The ultimate aim is for all law-abiding citizens to have the same services available to them.

If anything, the preferential treatment being sought here is for the religious since the argument is that this couple should be granted an exception from the law because they're religious.

 

Other things that are specifically condemned or commanded in the Bible

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."- would these Mennonites be protected by the First Amendment if they killed a woman if they can prove that she claimed to be a witch?

After the Bible commands this.

Perhaps you would like more from Leviticus instead?

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Do the Mennonites forbid the eating of Lobster and Crabs? You cite Leviticus as god calling male homosexuality an abomination- but God also calls eating pigs and shell fish an abomination in Leviticus.

Do you forsake pigs and shellfish?

After all- it is spelled out specifically in the Bible- as you pointed out.

Or how about this?

“He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16)

Lots of good stuff in Leviticus.

You say: This case boils down to what is specifically stated and what is inferred.... gay sex is specifically condemned in the Bible

Well lots of stuff is specifically stated in the Bible. Leviticus in particular is full of commandments of what God's followers should or should not do. Does freedom of religion therefore mean that anyone who follows anything in Leviticus is protected by the First Amendment? I don't think so.

Seriously- do you follow all the commandments of Leviticus? You cite Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality- do you stringently follow Leviticus?

And where does the Bible explicitly condemn lesbianism? Or do you infer that?

Lets explore more abominations:

Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."

Wow- so a good Christian woman would never put on her husbands shirt? Can a good Christian woman only wear shirts with the buttons on the proper side? What about pants?

And what about haircuts and beards?

When someone says- 'my holy scriptures say this is an abomination'- I think it then opens the question- does this person follow all the rules in that persons scriptures equally faithfully- or only the ones that the person picks and chooses?

I have noticed that this is the kind of claim people make when they disagree with the verdicts the courts make.

And no, you don't get to shop around for federal Appeals Courts- they get the cases from the courts in their districts.

 

until such time as medical science can prove that being homosexual is biological, it must be viewed as nothing more than a sexual act and a choice. So, to put it bluntly, one should be able to refuse a heterosexual much like they would refuse a murderer. (did you see how I used heterosexual)\

It's nothing but emotion driven to describe the homosexual lifestyle as anything more than a sexual choice.

 

What I dislike is the fact that these places are being targetted. The menonite chapel wasn't the only one available, and rather than go to a chapel that doesn't have a religious basis, they specifically chose to force themselves on these people. It's not right to do things that way, Christians are NOT going around trying to stop gay weddings, all they're asking for is the right to not participate. Unfortunately they're being targeted by agitators who are going to Christian based businesses for the express purpose of being denied so they can sue. The point isn't to get access for gay weddings, that already exists under the law. The point is to intimidate and bully into silence any person who dares to think that supporting a gay wedding is wrong. Bullying is wrong no matter how good you think your cause is.

 

You're entitled to that opinion but currently, the law in this jurisdiction (and many others) says otherwise. Of course, we could say exactly the same thing about religious beliefs too.

Regardless, none of that changes the fact that I see no preferential treatment for homosexuals here but there is preferential treatment for the religious.

 

This is a long running story that broke some time ago but IIRC, the chapel in question isn't an active place of worship any more and being used for civil weddings, not religious ones. It seems like one of the key points in their suit is that despite it not being an official place of worship, the legal exceptions that ould apply in that case should still apply to them.

 

No it must not be. You choose to do so.

However, choice has nothing to do with it.

Rules against sexual discrimination have nothing to do with choice- any more than rules against religious discrimination have to do with choice.

 

And if this was a business refusing to rent their facility to Blacks because of their skin color?

Or to Jews because of their religion?

It is easier to see the issue when viewed through the other categories that most people agree should not be allowed to be discriminated against by business's.

 

Maybe you missed the part where I do not judge people base on their level of belief, or lack there of. Whether this couple choses to serve lobster, crabs, pork or even alligator in their lunch Bristow is between them and God. Just as, if a the wife choses to wear pants or the husband choses to shave his beard. I don't know if they do or don't do any of these things, and I imagine that you don't know either. Frankly, I don't care if they don't or do. They are the only ones that have to answer for their decisions. While they will have to answer to God, the First Amendment says that they do not have to answer to you or the Government for their decisions that are based on passages of the bible.

Really? How many Federal Appeal Courts ruled on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act before it reached the Supreme Court? Did every one of these Appeal Courts rule the same way? Or did they rule based on the courts lean? Would you be surprised to find out that the 8th District Court of Appeals (the Federal District Court that covers Iowa) is the one of the Federal Appeal Courts that threw the challenge to the Affordable Care Act out of court. They claimed that it was due to a lack of standing.

You have to wonder why a couple from Des Moines, IA would go to Grimes, IA to get married when there are (according to the lawsuit) nine Venues that preform Same-sex Marriages in Des Moines. Could it be that the judge in the 7th District (that covers Des Moines) is a woman, and the judge in the 5th District (covering Polk Country) is a man. In the last retention elections three women District Chief Judges were voted out for voting in favor of removing the ban on Same-sex Marriages. They probably chose a Venue in Grimes because a male Judge would stand less pressure from their constituents.

 

please cite medical proof of your claim

I'll be sitting because I'll have a very long wait

 

Medical proof of what claim?

Choice does have nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws- hence

Rules against sexual discrimination have nothing to do with choice- any more than rules against religious discrimination have to do with choice.

So prove me wrong on that.

Or even address my point- that would be new and novel.

Since when do discrimination laws require medical proof?

What a bizarre claim.

 

This is what you said:
"This case boils down to what is specifically stated and what is inferred. "

Why not actually answer my questions rather than dance around them?

Other things that are specifically condemned or commanded in the Bible

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."- would these Mennonites be protected by the First Amendment if they killed a woman if they can prove that she claimed to be a witch?

After the Bible commands this.

Perhaps you would like more from Leviticus instead?

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Do the Mennonites forbid the eating of Lobster and Crabs? You cite Leviticus as god calling male homosexuality an abomination- but God also calls eating pigs and shell fish an abomination in Leviticus.

Do you forsake pigs and shellfish?

After all- it is spelled out specifically in the Bible- as you pointed out.

Or how about this?

“He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16)

Lots of good stuff in Leviticus.

You say: This case boils down to what is specifically stated and what is inferred.... gay sex is specifically condemned in the Bible

Well lots of stuff is specifically stated in the Bible. Leviticus in particular is full of commandments of what God's followers should or should not do. Does freedom of religion therefore mean that anyone who follows anything in Leviticus is protected by the First Amendment? I don't think so.

Seriously- do you follow all the commandments of Leviticus? You cite Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality- do you stringently follow Leviticus?

And where does the Bible explicitly condemn lesbianism? Or do you infer that?

Lets explore more abominations:

Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."

Wow- so a good Christian woman would never put on her husbands shirt? Can a good Christian woman only wear shirts with the buttons on the proper side? What about pants?

And what about haircuts and beards?

When someone says- 'my holy scriptures say this is an abomination'- I think it then opens the question- does this person follow all the rules in that persons scriptures equally faithfully- or only the ones that the person picks and chooses?

 

I love to dance with anyone and you're doing a good job at leading; very good

You claimed that choice had nothing to do with it and that was the context of homosexual vs hetero lifestyle

You have claimed and continue to claim that with whom you choose to have sex is not a choice. I claim otherwise.

Given that we're all exactly the same with the exception of how we have sex, then being hetero, IMO, is just a choice.

I freely admit that it's my opinion and that there is no medical proof to confirm or deny my claim

You on the other hand post as if it's a fact that it's not choice and I thus call you out on that, and th dance from you begins

Why does it bother you so that I think you chose to sleep with men rather than being born that way?

it doesn't matter as it has no affect on the type of person you are.

I am not offended that I chose to sleep with women

 

It is my understanding that if the "gallery" is a registered 501(c)(3) religious non profit entity then they cannot be required to perform the services that violate the religious beliefs of the church. If the "gallery" sells products and service to the general public then it cannot discriminate based upon the personal religious beliefs of the owners.

The key difference is non-profit religious institution v commercial enterprise from all I've read about the law.

 

I completely 100% disagree with you. Show me where in the First Amendment it states that Religions Freedoms is limited to those that follow every aspect of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or the Vedas, (ect...). As I have pointed out several times, the choices that a church or an individual makes in following their religion is answerable only to god. If every form of Christianity followed every aspect of the Bible, then there would only be one denomination. There would be no difference between Catholics and Baptists. No difference between Mormons and Methodists. The fact is there is no religion that follows 100% of all aspects of their base document, So, by your statement, no one is allowed the First Amendment protections of Religious Freedoms. As I stated in my original post on this OP, God created Man with free will. It is a corner stone of his plan. As a result of free will man has the ability to pick and chose what he wants to follow from the bible. If these choices angers God, then it is between the them and God. So, all these passages that you posted don't matter. The belief that these business owners have that gay sex is abomination of God is specifically stated in the bible. As such, the belief that a marriage is a Religious Ordinance between one man and one woman is a specific belief of their church. It is not inferred. And as such is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

As completely lame as your arguments have been, I am surprised that you missed the lamest argument of all. That being that marriage does not mean sex. Just because two people of the same sex get married does not mean that they are going to engage in gay sex. Thus moratorium on gay sex does not mean that two people of the same-sex can not marry. But, I guess that is too far fetched for even a Liberal like you to believe.

 

Where have I ever claimed that?

You are a pretty dancer indeed- making far fetched claims and then dancing away from them.

Once again- here is what I said

Choice does have nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws- hence

Rules against sexual discrimination have nothing to do with choice- any more than rules against religious discrimination have to do with choice.

If you are unable to actually address my point- and at this time its pretty obvious that you are unwilling to- then just stop responding to me with kindergarten level attempts to insult me.

 

Still dodging my question- here I will simplify it:

Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
This is what you said:
"This case boils down to what is specifically stated and what is inferred. "


"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."- would these Mennonites be protected by the First Amendment if they killed a woman if they can prove that she claimed to be a witch?

After the Bible commands this.

I will keep responding with this, and ignoring your redirection until you respond to my actual post.

 

If the Christian could actually prove that the individual killed was actually a witch, then I would support their right to take the life. But the only witches that I have heard of recently are those that follow Wicca. The Wicca followers that I have known does not have enough power to light a candle with a match. Now do you have any other irrelevant questions to ask?

 

Really?

You think that under the First Amendment, that religious freedom would legally allow a Christian(or a Jew for that matter) to kill a witch?

Well thanks for clarifying that.

 

In the 1878 Supreme Court decision on freedom of religion (Reynolds v US) the court stated, and I paraphrase, that a person is entitled to their religious beliefs regardless of what they might be but that their "actions" based upon their beliefs could not violate another person's rights under the law. Only the "actions" based upon religion are subject to judicial oversight and in this case the Rights of the Gay couple were violated by the actions of the gallery owners based upon their religious beliefs.

I don't think this lawsuit has a chance in a court of law.

 

you do not have a right to discriminate, some tried the same thing against inter-racial couples once... because of their "beliefs"

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

 

as a heterosexual, I know I never had a choice in who I was attracted too, did you?

 

And overturned by a unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia in 1967.

A reminder for everyone, when the Supreme Court rules that a law is unconstitutional it establishes that the law was ALWAYS unconstitutional (absent an intervening Amendment to the US Constitution). When the US Supreme Court ruled that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional it meant that it has been unconstitutional since September 21, 1996 when it was enacted into law. It was always unconstitutional even while it awaited the eventual decision by the US Supreme Court.

 

absolutely

I do not subscribe to being born hetero or homo. If that were the case, then there would be a medical test to prove it.