• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Thorgasm said:
Yes, Christians have pushed their anti-gay agenda for centuries. I am glad people are saying, "Enough.".
Click to expand...

Why are you singling out Christians? Why don't these activists pick on mosques and synagogues?
 
apdst said:
Link? Be sure and highlight the part that proves it's an arrestable offense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you got me there. You know what IS an arrestable offense?



Failure to pay a fine.
 
KevinKohler said:
Is Hobby Lobby allowed to deny entrance of sales to homosexuals?
Click to expand...

No, but they are not required to pay for certain medications and procedures included in the ACA that every other business is. The reason? Closely held religious beliefs for a privately owned business.
 
ksu_aviator said:
So, you are ok with the government throwing people in jail for not believing the way you do? What happens when the government is run by people that don't believe like you but want to apply the same principle?
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the post. And it is no real surprise you did.

No, I am not ok with the government throwing these people in jail. But I do understand how we got to this point, and if anyone is going to challenge where we are today on the grounds of Freedom of Religion vs. government protected classes then this is a good place to start. The bigger point though was this entire thing was avoidable if we removed government from the business of deciding what is and is not a marriage. In our zest to appeal to government to sponsor the beliefs of some over others we caused a problem. Again, an avoidable problem but we are past that now.
 
Navy Pride said:
Here we go...I knew this was going to happen. Outrageous. Legal marriage is not good enough.

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


October 20, 2014

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.
“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”
“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”
Click to expand...

Once again Navy doesn't have facts to support his far right opinions. This is a business. For profit, not a church.

By the way, we are still waiting for you to show yourself back on the Marshawn Lynch thread. You remember that one don't you?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This came up in another thread so I am going to provide the same response as its a simple cut and dry concept for some reason some people have difficulty grasping:

Its a for profit wedding chapel, not a church. No church has ever been forced to perform a same sex marriage, or even a second marriage, if it violates that church's doctrine. If a state were to ever attempt to force a church to perform a wedding that violated that church's doctrines, the church could march down to the local ACLU office and get them to sue the state - and they would win.

What we are talking about here is a business. A business is licensed in the state and locality it operates in and as part of that, a business owner agrees to abide by state and local laws and ordinances. As such, the business owners do not have a constitutional leg to stand on. Its a pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...

Would you say a minister receiving a salary from a church or congregation qualifies as a business?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The ACLU has taken up tons of religious freedom cases. https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

The fact is, this is a local ordinance that impacts a local business. There is no constitutional question involved here. What if anytime a business owner did not like a local ordinance they could claim religious discrimination? For example a Fundamentalist Christian owned business could claim that their literal interpretation of scripture forbids them from employing women in management roles. A Jewish owned business could claim that Saturday trash pickup violates their beliefs as that is the Sabbath for them and hauling the trash out for pickup constitutes working on the Sabbath.

When you license a business in a state and locality you agree to abide by the state and local laws and ordinances. As long as those state and local laws are constitutional, and anti-discrimination laws are indeed constitutional, then you have no choice but to abide by them, try to get them changed, or move your business to another state or locality.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious that all that, "we believe in religious freedom just as strongly as you" nonsense was just that - nonsense. If it were true, you'd at least understand why this is of concern but then, we're not just as trusting that the govt would just automically do the right thing. Let's be honest. Would you actually be vocal in your support for a church that the govt was trying to force to do something against its religious beliefs? Maybe but it would depend on the belief I'd guess. With SSM, you (and it seems like most proponents) would just find some reason to justify why it's perfectly acceptable this time.

I'm actually not opposed to SSM but this was a real concern for those of us who understand how important religion can be in a person's life, no matter how crazy or stupid that sounds to you.
 
apdst said:
Two words: Hobby Lobby
Click to expand...

That is the wrong constitutional reasoning. Hobby Lobby had noting to do with banning customers based on religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court was very clear on what HL was allowed to do. HL in no way opened any door to the ability of for profit institution to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, but they are not required to pay for certain medications and procedures included in the ACA that every other business is. The reason? Closely held religious beliefs for a privately owned business.
Click to expand...

And....that's....relevant....how?

Big difference between refusing to provide BC on religious grounds, and discriminating against customers on religious grounds.
 
WCH said:
Would you say a minister receiving a salary from a church or congregation qualifies as a business?
Click to expand...

Are you saying God is a business?
 
I'm tickled pink. I've finally managed to get a few Christians to admit that their religion is a business!



If I died today, I think I'd die pretty happy, lol!
 
gdgyva said:
just remember you said that....

the thing about a lot of religious people is that they believe in the principle "an eye for an eye"

you hurt their family, they hurt yours.........

not saying it will happen, but i wont rule it out

the lgbt is now targeting businesses with any religious ideals that may think differently than they do......

okay.....but paybacks are a bitch.......and you screw with enough people, you will get burned
Click to expand...

Burned at the stake like witches were?
 
apdst said:
Why are you singling out Christians? Why don't these activists pick on mosques and synagogues?
Click to expand...

Do Jews and Muslim run wedding chapels?

Isn't Jews and Muslims killing each other enough?
 
KevinKohler said:
Are you saying God is a business?
Click to expand...

Trying to see if there's a difference according to the poster.

If these pastors fall under the anti-discrimination laws because they profit well, so do most ministers, preachers, etc.
 
X Factor said:
I think it's pretty obvious that all that, "we believe in religious freedom just as strongly as you" nonsense was just that - nonsense. If it were true, you'd at least understand why this is of concern but then, we're not just as trusting that the govt would just automically do the right thing. Let's be honest. Would you actually be vocal in your support for a church that the govt was trying to force to do something against its religious beliefs? Maybe but it would depend on the belief I'd guess. With SSM, you (and it seems like most proponents) would just find some reason to justify why it's perfectly acceptable this time.

I'm actually not opposed to SSM but this was a real concern for those of us who understand how important religion can be in a person's life, no matter how crazy or stupid that sounds to you.
Click to expand...

The problem I see is that many see a battle or a competition between their religious beliefs and constitutional rights.

The is no comparison. The Constitution takes a back seat to no religious doctrine. Any and all religious doctrine can function and participate within the frame work of the Constitution.

No one should every suppose that their..or any other...religious doctrine is superior in law over the US Constitution.

That is the root of the problem. Far too many claim their uncodified beliefs trump well established American jurisprudence.
 
WCH said:
Trying to see if there's a difference according to the poster.

If these pastors fall under the anti-discrimination laws because they profit well, so do most ministers, preachers, etc.
Click to expand...

So, you tell me. Is allowing a cheap chapel in Vegas or where ever, and it's ordained minister owners, the "right" to discriminate based on sexual orientation worth acknowledging that Christianity is a for profit business?
 
KevinKohler said:
I'm tickled pink. I've finally managed to get a few Christians to admit that their religion is a business!



If I died today, I think I'd die pretty happy, lol!
Click to expand...

Don't get too happy there. You're jumping the gun.

The question at hand is whether these folks in Idaho are running a business.
 
gdgyva said:
just remember you said that....

the thing about a lot of religious people is that they believe in the principle "an eye for an eye"

you hurt their family, they hurt yours.........

not saying it will happen, but i wont rule it out

the lgbt is now targeting businesses with any religious ideals that may think differently than they do......

okay.....but paybacks are a bitch.......and you screw with enough people, you will get burned
Click to expand...

You make "religious people" sound like some school yard punk ready to dole out rough justice.
 
WCH said:
Don't get too happy there. You're jumping the gun.

The question at hand is whether these folks in Idaho are running a business.
Click to expand...

Uh, they are.




Do they pay taxes?
 
gdgyva said:
just remember you said that....

the thing about a lot of religious people is that they believe in the principle "an eye for an eye"

you hurt their family, they hurt yours.........

not saying it will happen, but i wont rule it out

the lgbt is now targeting businesses with any religious ideals that may think differently than they do......

okay.....but paybacks are a bitch.......and you screw with enough people, you will get burned
Click to expand...

Yep. That's clearly what Jesus would say to do.
 
WCH said:
Trying to see if there's a difference according to the poster.

If these pastors fall under the anti-discrimination laws because they profit well, so do most ministers, preachers, etc.
Click to expand...

If is a big IF.

Even if these ministers refused to preform SSM, there would be no criminal action involved. Violating a municipal ordinance is a misdemeanor offense.
 
1750Texan said:
If is a big IF.

Even if these ministers refused to preform SSM, there would be no criminal action involved. Violating a municipal ordinance is a misdemeanor offense.
Click to expand...

People go to jail for misdemeanor offenses all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom