Reply With Quote
Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.
And no, my name isn't even Rob.
It's funny when you call him David because your real name is probably really Rob Diaz.
And I'm gonna guess you were stupid enough to put your DOB in your user name: 02/01/1991
Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.
And no, my name isn't even Rob.
Rescue? Who's David?
Why is your screen name ribdiaz2191?And no, my name isn't even Rob.
Crofl sure it's not.Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.
And no, my name isn't even Rob.
who knows. is your first name Chump? Why is your screen name ChumpDumper?
Religious intermarriage can be denied by priest or rabbi. Nobody makes a big about it, right or wrong. How's that any different (serious question bec. I truly don't know)? I'm talking non-government employees. I understand why government employees have no out.
Anyway, those who want intermarry simply find a priest or rabbi willing to do it, of which there are plenty.
I don't see the point forcing private citizens to offer that service. Different people have different beliefs in regards to what marriage cons utes. If they don't believe it encompasses more than man-women then so be it...there's plenty of people out there that are open to it, go knock on their door. Same with interracial marriage.
A priest or a rabbi conducting personal business doesn't make them a representative of the State. That the State might admit do entation from a priest or a rabbi in order to issue a marriage license still doesn't make them a representative of the State.
A government clerk *IS* a representative of the State and his/her actions directly produce State speech.
Got it now?
He does.No.is your first name Chump?Named after the dump-a-chump Spurs offense.Why is your screen name ChumpDumper?
Pretty simple stuff.
lol why is it so difficult for these people to stay on point?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7559263Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.
And no, my name isn't even Rob.
Just trolling right?
Just playing devils advocate to this argument.
All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.
Not happening.
I suspect the big televangelists, Hagee, Robertson, hyper-wealth mega-church hucksters, etc make "dark money" political contributions to Christian supremacist Repug politicians.
I don't think that would survive scrutiny from a court of law, if the sole basis for denying tax exempt status is religious objection.
If there are other reasons, then it might be meritorious.
Except that it's not really the church that agrees to perform a wedding. It's the individual minister.
where it would get tricky imo would be when the gay couple wants to pay to have the ceremony at a church and are denied. That might be kinda like the Christian bakers refusing to make the gay cake.
Ftr, I think it's complete bull that churches are granted tax exempt status. You can toss Goodwill stores in there too.
Nothing tricky about that, tbh.... you can chose to do business with whomever you want.
"All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt"
The HUGE ING LIE, FUD, these MEN OF GOD, and their Repug/Fox LIARS, keep repeating is that the Feds will jail them for refusing to marry same-sexers.
ALREADY, priests, pastors, ministers have complete rights to refuse to marry anyone ALREADY, been doing that forever.
depends on the state, iirc
If the government tried that, based solely on a church's refusal to wed same-sex couples, I have no difficulty saying that I hope the court would quickly grant judgment to the church and would sternly rebuke the government for wasting its time with such nonsense.
The one thing that has struck me about the debate on this issue since Friday is how little so many people know about the Cons ution and how it actually works. The Cons ution doesn't directly apply to non-governmental actors. That's why you can fire an employee who makes a statement that you take issue with and his recourse isn't to claim that he has some First Amendment right to say what he wants.
The notion that states should get to decide whether or not individuals can exercise fundamental rights is laughably inaccurate. The notion that churches or preachers can be made -- either by force of affirmative law or by the compulsion of implied law -- to violate their fundamental religious tenets is bizarrely detached from the actual law of the land (which, again, Justice Kennedy took pains to note in his opinion).
Churches can lose their religious rights when they stop being religious, but when they act from a place of religious conscience, their conduct is protected by a fundamental right -- the fundamental right to free exercise.
Even if a state has a law that prohibits discrimination in such things, there's absolutely no way that the State can apply that law to religious groups without infringing their right to Free Exercise.
About twenty states with that type of law
but from that standpoint, even the Civil Rights Act contradicts the right to free exercise.
Without an exemption for churches? That would be stunning, since most of those laws expressly exempt religious organizations from their application.
For instance, le VII includes a provision (42 U.S.C. s. 2000e-1) that exempts religious organizations from a significant portion of its requirements and allows those religious organizations to (for example) refuse to hire people of other faiths to perform work related to the religious organization's activities.
If a church opens it doors to the general public to hold wedding ceremonies, I think tha le vii is gonna get tested very very soon thanks to gay marriage ruling.
I put the over under on a lawsuit coming at +/- one year.
I know it's England, but iirc, there's a gay couple suing the church of England for refusing.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions