- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Rational: No
Likely: Yes
and what do you base the thought that its likely on
The likeliness that litigation against churches who refuse to perform marriages for particular demograhics will be succesful.
thats not really an answer
what would the "likeliness" of the litigation be based on?
hell what legality would the litigation be based on?
and why would it be successful when all the others litigation was not?
1. I assume you mean the likeliness of success? In the civil law cases I've observed, it's usually up to the judge to decide.
2. Discriminatory practices would be my best bet.
3. I may be wrong, but I think we can observe a trend were hurt feelings being grounds for litigation, is becoming more common.
Don't even try the "no true Christian" fallacy. If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you are a Christian, pure and simple.
1.) thats easy, because ZERO businesses have been FORCED to participate in gay weddings or go out of business
2.) religious freedom is exactly the reason why its silly to believe churches will be forced, they wont because of religious freedom
but to speak more directly of your comment, no freedom works like you just stated . . .speech, religions etc
1.) not trying to debate you, im simply asking you what you meant since you were unclear
2.) i want no answer, i want you to be clear what you meant because what you wrote doesn't make it clear lol
3.) good move since i am looking for clarity
4.) that doesnt really answer anything either but ok, i guess you werent looking to be clear
I'm not, in fact I agree with you. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, but a lot of Christians don't see it that way. There is no definition of "true Christian" that makes any sense.
1.)Unless they make wedding cakes. Hahahah
2.)But I don't think it's likely that churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, not in the short term anyway. It's certainly not reasonable to force them to perform same sex marriages.
And what's not clear about "by the standard you use to judge, you shall be judged"?
.
1.) again not really an answer, what civil law cases do you think make this likely
2.) what discriminatory practices? there are none that the church is participating in that are ILLEGAL
3.) really theres a trend over cases be based on hurt feelings and winning? can you provide ONE example i dont know of any.
1. As I've already expressed, the likeliness of success of a given lawsuit ultimately depends on the judge (or jury) rendering the verdict.
If you meant something else by your question, you're gonna have to specify.
2 & 3. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...lic-church-it-must-permit-homosexual-adoption
Religious institutions have for some millenia (at least since Hammurabi) been forced to act against their religious creed via litigation. We normally think of this as a good thing when it comes to stoning women for adultery and such, but the development of said trend didn't stop there, as the link demonstrates. To put a finer point (and a little more recent perspective) on it, the advent of human rights is what we normally think of as seriously curtailing the power of religion to interfere in our lives. However, the question nowadays seem to be more of a matter of if and how human rights' ability to interfere in the lives of others should be curtailed.
This is a subset of the discussion of positive versus negative rights; if rights should be limited to someone not being allowed to actively interfere with your rights, or if they should be required to actively provide said rights for you. Or, in relation to the the premise of this thread, is it enough that a given religious institution not be allowed to interfere in marriages of people they don't like, or should they be required to provide such marriages. Well, as the linked article shows, at present churches in Massachusets are not only disallowed to interfere in adoptions of children to gay people (negative rights), they are required to let them adopt children under their care (positive rights). This is a clear example of an institution being required to actively provide rights for someone they didn't have to provide rights for earlier, and thus a trend indicator.
1.) i already did, you cant claim you have seen it on "civil cases" which this would not most likely be in end and then not give examples . . .
what examples of civil cases are you talkign about that also show people and judges dont care about rights and the constitution and about no laws being broken
2.) this doesn't answer but thank you for providing it because it shows your confusion . . .and adoption agency is not the CHURCH no matter who owns it
this is the same reason St Lukes hospital cant deny people based on religion it had NOTHING to do with religion and is NOT a church
so examples of people trying (and failing) to expand their religious rights where there are none are not examples of "hurt feelings" they are in fact examples of brekaing the law and rules and rights they work against your claims of "hurt feelings" and support the reasoning why CHURCHES arent in any danger of being forced to do marriages
an institution saying its "religious" or it in fact being "religious" doesn't give it a blank check to do as it will
adoption has ZERO to do with the church/religion and thats why that institution lost
so now just like question 1 i ask 2 and 3 over again
A.)what discriminatory practices? there are none that the church is participating in that are ILLEGAL (AS TO DENYING MARRIAGES)
B.) really theres a trend over cases be based on hurt feelings and winning? can you provide ONE example i dont know of any.
1.)Ahh, I get it. You thought I claimed to have seen such cases. I didn't. If you would care to reread the line of enquiry, I simply said that I would consider the success of such a lawsuit as being likely.
2.)Furthermore the article in question is not an example of expanding religious rights. Previously the institution was allowed to discriminate based on sexuality. Now they aren't.
3.) Regarding your example with religious institutions of healing, you are somewhat off-target. Religious institutions used to be able to choose who they offered treatment, today they aren't.
4.)The premise of your question is illogical. The poll asks if churches will legally be obliged to perform marriages for people they don't want to. Not if they are already required to do so.
5.) In law, hurt feelings are referred to as "Emotional Distress". Here is an example. Emotional Distress Claims: a Future Trend in Oklahoma? | Human Resources News
I'm sure we both agree that the employer was out of line, and should be required to pay compensation. However, 20 years ago, he most likely wouldn't be. 50 years ago, the employee would have been laughed out of court. 200 years ago, the employer could have beat him silly and not faced any charges. Like the previous example, this describes a trend.
1.) not thats not what i think, i was asking you WHY you have the reasoning you do. When you stated because of civil cases, yes i wanted you to expand on that but thats it., and i STILL have that question as to why you see it as likely.
2.) yes it is . . . just cause it was going on doesnt mean they were "allowed" or that it wasnt a rights violation it just wasnt pushed or fought against
some things have to be challenged . . just like gay rights . . .
banning marriage, gay marriage was in fact the state overstepping its boundaries and that was challenged and it is losing
3.) correct because once challenged it was found to violate rights
4.) I agree the question is illogical but not for the reasons you claim
I agree its illogical because the idea that it will happen is illogical, but there are some here that swear its right around the corner
5.) i didnt ask what anybody thinks emotional distress was i ask for cases that show a trend to support the churches being forced to do marriages.
your opinion of that case and how it would of done 20, 50, 200 years ago doesnt do so since the constitution exist and that wasnt a church :shrug:
I dont understand why the question is so trying for you?
im simply asking you what your reasoning is for you to think its likely a church will be forced to do marriages it doesnt want to.
all that aside we are getting sidetracked
maybe im not being specific enough. Im looking for logical, fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely based on legality/rights/constitution etc. . .
Dont get me wrong you are free to just feel its likely for whatever reason you want but i was looking for answer that could factually hold weight, other than subjectively
so i only have ONE question, forget the rest, basically do you have anything besides just a gut feeling or hunches, thats what im looking for, something with some logical meat to it, something again, im looking for something fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely on legality/rights/constitution etc
do you have anything like that?
You want hard facts for something that doesn't exist at this point in time? Sorry, but to predict the future, you are forced to rely on the interpretation of trends, not solid evidence.
weird im a christian and i see ZERO reason to infringe on others equal rights nor does anybody at my church including clergy. Also theres nothign about respecting equal rights that factually gives false testimony
but there are Christians out there that do want to infringe on rights
In another thread you said you didn't belong to a Church. Which is it?
well i doubt that but ive been here almost 5 years and there was two times where i didnt have a church so the reality is i have one :shrug: anything else?
Nope, I get the picture.
2.) won't happen in my life time
Probably not. I said it's not likely.
Why is it so far fetched when Christian businesses have already been forced to either participate in gay weddings, or go out of business? We either have religious freedom, or we don't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?