TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

RE: Ministers Must Conduct Same Sex Weddings or Go to Jail

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Mary Zombie wrote:
I don't even know if it's all about christianity. It seems to me that some people need to have everyone validate their lifestykle and choices.

I believe that if you're confident in your choices and path, you'd have
no need for valiation from everyone.
BUT you would want to be treated FAIRLY.
flan

What you consider fair and what another considers fair can, and often is, two totally different things.

Fair is for toddlers dividing their bite bites. Not grown adults.

What you want is to be treated equally.

Equality does not mean you get every single thing another gets.

It means you may have to compromise or even choose other options to get what you want.

Nothing is ever fair or completely equal.

To believe that is to be woefully ignorant and frankly wishful and magical thinking.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Also - if a non-member of a church wants to get married there, most churches charge to rent the building, and for the people needed to oversee the event.
True, but the church itself isn't considered a business.
At what point is the line drawn? I'm not exactly sure.
Should bakers be allowed to say no to a wedding cake?
Or a hotel refuse to rent a ballroom for a gay wedding?
Or is just when someone is the officiant and actually performing the ceremony?
My initial thoughts are a true church that is registered as a church should be able to turn away anyone for any religious reason.
Any officiant should be able to refuse to perform a ceremony.
But a public business may need to accommodate.
Could the wedding venue in this story just let them rent out the room they wanted and gotten someone else to perform the ceremony? Would that satisfy the city? Or is that not good enough?

Rights belong to INDIVIDUALS--not buildings.

If you are asking someone to perform a religious ritual--that is against their religion--that is wrong.

Should the government be able to dictate that a Catholic priest give communion to a divorced person?
Should the government be able to dictate that a pastor must baptize any certain individual?

If you are going to make the argument that a wedding is not religious--then you need neither a minister, or a chapel. Have it in the courthouse. If you want a minister and a chapel--then it's religious.
husker, they do it all the time...every single Sunday.
flan

They do it because the government makes them? Will they face 180 days in jail and a $1000 for each day they refuse?

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Also - if a non-member of a church wants to get married there, most churches charge to rent the building, and for the people needed to oversee the event.
True, but the church itself isn't considered a business.
At what point is the line drawn? I'm not exactly sure.
Should bakers be allowed to say no to a wedding cake?
Or a hotel refuse to rent a ballroom for a gay wedding?
Or is just when someone is the officiant and actually performing the ceremony?
My initial thoughts are a true church that is registered as a church should be able to turn away anyone for any religious reason.
Any officiant should be able to refuse to perform a ceremony.
But a public business may need to accommodate.
Could the wedding venue in this story just let them rent out the room they wanted and gotten someone else to perform the ceremony? Would that satisfy the city? Or is that not good enough?

Rights belong to INDIVIDUALS--not buildings.

If you are asking someone to perform a religious ritual--that is against their religion--that is wrong.

Should the government be able to dictate that a Catholic priest give communion to a divorced person?
Should the government be able to dictate that a pastor must baptize any certain individual?

If you are going to make the argument that a wedding is not religious--then you need neither a minister, or a chapel. Have it in the courthouse. If you want a minister and a chapel--then it's religious.
husker, they do it all the time...every single Sunday.
flan

They aren't supposed to--but that's not the point, anyway.

Should the government be able to forbid it, then?

Should the government be in the business of forbidding, or insisting--that religious ministers do religious rites in ANY situation?

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Mary Zombie wrote:
I don't even know if it's all about christianity. It seems to me that some people need to have everyone validate their lifestykle and choices.

I believe that if you're confident in your choices and path, you'd have
no need for valiation from everyone.
BUT you would want to be treated FAIRLY.
flan

And it is grossly unfair for someone to be coerced into going against their faith.

If these ministers don't perform the wedding--that does NOT mean they can't get married. So it is NOT "unfair" to the couple wanting to marry, they can still get married.

Using your illogic, any gay couple can pick any minister out of the phonebook, online, or whatever and force them to perform their wedding.

How can you possibly justify that?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Some people would like Christians and Christianity to go away all together.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Some people would like Christians and Christianity to go away all together.

Nope, just the haters.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Some people would like Christians and Christianity to go away all together.
Nope, just the haters.
flan

Pot to kettle.

You want people to be forced to go against their religion--nothing is really more hateful than that.

It would be the same thing as requiring a Muslim to eat pork, not allowing a Jew to eat Kosher, forcing the Catholic Church to allow priests to marry, etc...

-- Edited by huskerbb on Monday 20th of October 2014 07:10:36 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Some people would like Christians and Christianity to go away all together.
Nope, just the haters.
flan

and what exactly makes them a "hater"?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Anyone who disagrees with them, their beliefs, or their lifestyles.

huskerbb · Guru

Let's say there is a beautiful country club that hosts weddings. Any religion/denomination is welcome, but most of the weddings are performed by a Muslim cleric, a Rabbi, or a Catholic priest--depending on the religion of the couple.

It's a secular institution, so anyone can get married there--including gays.

Using the illogic of those who side with the gay rights movement on this issue, the government should be able to force any of those religious clergy to perform weddings for gay couples despite what their religious beliefs are (I don't know the Jewish stance).

The government should be able to force them to perform a religious rite that is against their religion. That is the logic used here.

How that can be treated as anything other than a direct attack on freedom of religion is beyond me. Only a complete ignoramous can't see that.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Monday 20th of October 2014 07:18:55 PM

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Husker, I believe the point is they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone and won't be happy until they have. Like many have said, they COULD hire anyone. They PURPOSELY seek out people who don't believe what they do to do the ceremony. Stupidity at it's finest.

I routinely shop/don't shop at stores that either support or don't support things I believe in. I will not give my money to someone who openly disagrees with me. I really don't understand why people want to PAY someone who doesn't agree with them to perform a service.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Husker - it isn't that they can't see it, it's that they WANT to eradicate religious freedom.

And as for people constantly crying "hater" - that is a reflection of the heart of the person saying it.

Mary Zombie · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Mary Zombie wrote:
I don't even know if it's all about christianity. It seems to me that some people need to have everyone validate their lifestykle and choices.

I believe that if you're confident in your choices and path, you'd have
no need for valiation from everyone.
BUT you would want to be treated FAIRLY.
flan

But see....the same arguement applies to both sides.

Hi Vette!!!!!

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Exactly Mary. Minister want to be treated fairly and not be forced to go against something THEY believe. Kind of the same thing the homosexuals have been fighting for.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

And what if the minister did not believe in interracial marriage?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

Here's my thing. Why in Gods name would you want to force someone to marry you if they didn't agree with your marriage? To make a point? Because if I was forced to, it would be the shortest rudest ceremony ever. No one would be happy. I would make noises and gag and roll my eyes the entire time. Trust me, you would not be happy...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
And what if the minister did not believe in interracial marriage?

flan

What if? What if? what if?

My son use to do the same thing. Of course he was 4.

Point is, why would you WANT someone to do your wedding if they didn't want to?

Would you have wanted someone opposed to interracial marriage preforming your first wedding?

WYSIWYG · Guru

My first post has to be somewhere. It may as well be here.

The Chapel looks like a storefront business, just like any other storefront business. My only question is, are they listed as a Church for tax purposes or not? If they are a regular business, they should have to follow all the laws that a regular business has to follow, including non-discrimination laws. If they are a Church then they should get the exemptions that a church gets.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

You could object to the wedding when you were forced to give it and say does anyone here object to this union?

ed11563 · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Here's my thing. Why in Gods name would you want to force someone to marry you if they didn't agree with your marriage? To make a point? Because if I was forced to, it would be the shortest rudest ceremony ever. No one would be happy. I would make noises and gag and roll my eyes the entire time. Trust me, you would not be happy...

"Do you take him to be your spouse?"

(yes)

"Do you take him to be your spouse?"

(yes)

"You're married. Sign the papers and leave now. That will be $500. "

How hard would that be? Maybe make it $1,000, cash up front.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Hire a Justice of the Peace for the non-religious. Would be a simple solution. That way the ministers would not have to perform the ceremony.

Ohfour · Hooker

just Czech wrote:
Hire a Justice of the Peace for the non-religious. Would be a simple solution. That way the ministers would not have to perform the ceremony.

Now, Czech. You know they don't want THAT. They want to make people do something they don't agree with. It's a power trip. There is such an easy solution, but they want people to suffer. There can be NO denying that...

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I've never understood why they can't be happy with hiring a JOP. It's beyond me.

And before anyone asks me if I would be happy hiring a JOP, yes, we did. We hired a JOP and got legally married and had a "ceremony" later.

Tinydancer · Guru

Can we all just remember that it's only some few people who would even think to do this. Most people on both sides of the gay marriage issue would never even want this to happen. Whether it's forcing them to perform the ceremony or not allowing them to get married someones rights are not being upheld.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

But it's the ones that cause the kerfuffle and sue and make national headlines that most people remember. Not the gay couple down the street. It does damage to "the cause".

Tinydancer · Guru

There are also people who cause a kerfuffle about gays getting married but I don't believe kerfufflers are the majority. I think I just invented a word...lol

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
My first post has to be somewhere. It may as well be here.

The Chapel looks like a storefront business, just like any other storefront business. My only question is, are they listed as a Church for tax purposes or not? If they are a regular business, they should have to follow all the laws that a regular business has to follow, including non-discrimination laws. If they are a Church then they should get the exemptions that a church gets.

It makes no difference. Freedom of religion is for individuals, not buildings.

You are asking religious ministers to perform a religious ceremony that is AGAINST their religion. What particular building it is in, or if it were outside, is IRRELEVANT.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
And what if the minister did not believe in interracial marriage?

flan

I'm betting you cannot force a minister to perform that ceremony, either. I don't know any case law--but whether a minister marries any particular couple has ALWAYS been up to that particular minister.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

WYSIWYG wrote:
My first post has to be somewhere. It may as well be here.

The Chapel looks like a storefront business, just like any other storefront business. My only question is, are they listed as a Church for tax purposes or not? If they are a regular business, they should have to follow all the laws that a regular business has to follow, including non-discrimination laws. If they are a Church then they should get the exemptions that a church gets.

Welcome aboard!

Please note the cookies are for the dark siders, hand baskets are to the left. If you need bail we have that in a special account.

Sporks are the preferred method of erraticating evil doers and if that isn't good enough NJN lives close to alligators.

Chocolate is always appropriate and cake is the answer to everything.

Have I missed anything Geekers?

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

Some geeks have access to deep freezers if you need to store....something....

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Southern_Belle wrote:
Some geeks have access to deep freezers if you need to store....something....

What are we storing?

Vette · Owl drink to that!

What you see is what you get? = WYSIWYG

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 21st of October 2014 07:56:55 PM

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And always remember... Peroxide FIRST because it takes the stain out and then bleach because it totally covers the smell.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

lilyofcourse wrote:
Southern_Belle wrote:
Some geeks have access to deep freezers if you need to store....something....
What are we storing?

Bodies, erm, I mean sides of beef.....

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Southern_Belle wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Southern_Belle wrote:
Some geeks have access to deep freezers if you need to store....something....
What are we storing?
Bodies, erm, I mean sides of beef.....

No no no. We don't store those!

That is what the alligators are for!

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

I live around a lot of swamps :).

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Good to know.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

I have a shovel, will travel.
Welcome aboard WYSIWYG. Looking forward to getting to know you.
We are all nuts, so if you feel like you're a nut, jump in with the rest of us nuts. smile

Bonny22Pye · Guru

The business could hire someone to do gay weddings.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Some times you feel like a nut.

Some times you don't.

Almond Joys got nuts.

Mounds don't.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"It makes no difference. Freedom of religion is for individuals, not buildings.

You are asking religious ministers to perform a religious ceremony that is AGAINST their religion. What particular building it is in, or if it were outside, is IRRELEVANT." - huskerbb

(the Advanced Editor hates me for some reason)
It makes every difference. Churches get an exemption, Businesses don't. There may be people running the business, but the business is providing the service. The people using the business aren't paying the people that own the business, they are paying the business. The owners are, basically, employees of the business.

And, as you say, "Freedom of religion is for individuals, not buildings". The business is a building.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"What you see is what you get? = WYSIWYG" - VetteGirl

I figured a geek would understand. ;)

WYSIWYG · Guru

"The business could hire someone to do gay weddings." - Bonny22Pye

I agree. This would solve the problem of the ministers not wanting to perform them.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Thank you all for the warm welcome and for the offers of assistance with "beef storage".

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"It makes no difference. Freedom of religion is for individuals, not buildings.

You are asking religious ministers to perform a religious ceremony that is AGAINST their religion. What particular building it is in, or if it were outside, is IRRELEVANT." - huskerbb

(the Advanced Editor hates me for some reason)
It makes every difference. Churches get an exemption, Businesses don't. There may be people running the business, but the business is providing the service. The people using the business aren't paying the people that own the business, they are paying the business. The owners are, basically, employees of the business.

And, as you say, "Freedom of religion is for individuals, not buildings". The business is a building.

But so what? They aren't asking a "business" to perform a ceremony--they are asking these individuals.

There is NO WAY to reasonably justify this.

Plus, EVERY church performs weddings. Some of them make money from it.

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
The business could hire someone to do gay weddings.

The couple can go across the street to the courthouse.

Why is that not a reasonable solution?

It's certainly more reasonable than forcing a business to hire someone.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

You guys forgot that Flan is going to buy us a geek cruise!

WYSIWYG · Guru

"There is NO WAY to reasonably justify this." - huskerbb

There is no way to reasonably justify discrimination.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"There is NO WAY to reasonably justify this." - huskerbb

There is no way to reasonably justify discrimination.

Yeah. You are discriminating against people for their religious beliefs.

Whether these ministers perform this wedding, or not, makes ZERO difference on whether any particular couple can get married.

Forcing people to perform a religious rite that is against their religion completely takes away any and all freedom of religion.

That is the folly of the left. They don't care about anyone's rights that they don't agree with.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Tuesday 21st of October 2014 10:11:13 PM