Do they have a clause in their constitution that prevents such?
Canadian Government made it a "thought crime" to preach against homosexuality behind the pulpit.
Do you have a source?
Oh my gosh, no, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me at all. In fact, I assumed that you disagreed with my sentiment about religion in general. However, I didn't think that you would have "liked" my particular post if it had been saying that religion should be curbed by some legislative means. I would have thought that any argument along those lines would have had to be far more developed for you to have 'liked' it for it's thoughtfulness.
To be frank, I did come to the conclusion that you liked the post because you liked the fact that I don't want to legislate my own personal views regarding religion. I see now that I might have been wrong on that count, though you haven't said either way. If I did put words in your mouth, I do also here apologize
They will argue that churches cannot prevent people from exercising their "fundamental right" to marry.
Or something.
Declining to perform a service is in no way preventing people from excercising their other options for a provider of such a service.How can a Church deny this?
How can a Church deny this?
I don't believe religious believes or lack of religious beliefs should be legislated. Everyones right to a religious belief or to NOT have a religious belief should be respected and legally protected.
They're trying to bring Canadian Health Care here. Who knows what could be next?
You need evidence and not wild leaps. By your logic, we're going to force ministers to marry all hetrosexuals who want to be rmarried or we're denying them their rights. Hasn't happened. Ministers deny marrying people all the time.
if there is a law for something then no minister can go against this , so if gay marriage is accepted in the law then there is clearly a problem ( imagine he is the only person who can marry people then the couple wont get married at all ? even with the law on there side ?
Of course you know that some in the gay community are already trying to get it designated as a hate crime if a minister gets behind the pulpit and preaches against homosexuality.
Declining to perform a service is in no way preventing people from excercising their other options for a provider of such a service.
It's not heterosexuals who are wanting special privileges.
You do understand that I completely agree with you, and that my post that you quoted is saying that, right?
I think that people should understand how committed to religious freedom liberals generally are, including the atheist ones. I believe that freedom of conscience is one of the most important freedoms we have. I will argue irreverently and with enthusiasm against religion in the public discourse. I dislike religion. But if people are ever forced to support a religion or dogma they disagree with, or are barred in any way by anyone from religious practices that affect only people who are consenting to it, or are prevented from proselytizing, I will be there, supporting religious people all the way. Your freedom to practice your religion is very important to me. I cannot emphasize that enough. And I am pretty sure I am the norm, more or less, for atheist liberals.
It's not heterosexuals who are wanting special privileges.
Deny what? Not marrying a couple they do not want to marry?How can a Church deny this?
if there is a law for something then no minister can go against this , so if gay marriage is accepted in the law then there is clearly a problem ( imagine he is the only person who can marry people then the couple wont get married at all ? even with the law on there side ?
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?