• 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

vesper said:
The Hitching Post is being sued? Since when? I thought it was the Knapp's suing their government. :)
Click to expand...

I don't know, that's a good question, and is what I'm asking of Navy. I said the hitching post is bringing suit, not that they're having a suit brought against them.
 
Navy Pride said:
ZYP you really don't know their background or how they were ordained......Neither do I. They are religious that is why they don't want to do the weddings...It really seems silly to me when there are probably dozens of non religeous ministers that would marry them........Its just another way to shove homosexuality down our throats and try to force us to accept it and you know that.
Click to expand...

So Navy.....would you be "perfectly fine" if these "ministers" refused to perform an inter-racial marriage because it violated their religious views? After all....isn't it silly when there are probably dozens of non religious ministers that would marry an inter-racial couple? Is it just another way to shove inter-racial marriage down the throats of those who don't want to accept it? Just curious.
 
so let me see if i get this right

as soon as a preacher, or a reverend, or a minister starts to make any money for his/her services, they no longer can "hide" behind their religious rights?

is that what you on the left are saying?

they have the right to set up a business, and try to make additional money for their family.....but if they do, their views mean nothing in that business model

no matter what their faith says.....no matter how they have lived their lives.....no matter whatsoever they believe what is right or wrong

do i have your position correctly stated?
 
gdgyva said:
so let me see if i get this right

as soon as a preacher, or a reverend, or a minister starts to make any money for his/her services, they no longer can "hide" behind their religious rights?

is that what you on the left are saying?

they have the right to set up a business, and try to make additional money for their family.....but if they do, their views mean nothing in that business model

no matter what their faith says.....no matter how they have lived their lives.....no matter whatsoever they believe what is right or wrong

do i have your position correctly stated?
Click to expand...

No, when you run a for profit business, you can't discriminate against someone for their sexual preference.
 
gdgyva said:
as soon as a preacher, or a reverend, or a minister starts to make any money for his/her services, they no longer can "hide" behind their religious rights?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not "the left", but...

As soon as they register as a for profit business, such as and LLC, they can't "hide" behind their religious rights with regards to what the business offers when doing so would be a violation of the law and the customers civil rights.

The one seeming point of contention that has been brought up (honestly can't remember if it was this or another thread, I think it was the other)...

There's some disconnect that people have about WHAT services specifically such a business should be compelled to do.

For example my stance would be that if he was looking for an exemption to the law ONLY as it relates to the "Christian" wedding the hitching post offers, but not to the multitude of non-christian services it offers, I would not be having an issue here. His business specifically advertises doing services that are civil, non-traditional, and even for other religions. But he's asking for a religious exemption, even in the case of ceremonies that his business advertises for that are inherently NON-RELIGIOUS, and thus I have an issue.

For profit businesses can not claim "religious belief" as a reason for violating laws regulating commerce. If I claim that my religious belief is that a woman should not be able to purchase a good or service as they themselves are property, I could not use that as an excuse to deny service to women in my place of business. As a liscensed business operating open to the public a persons civil rights trumps my religious rights in that particular instance.
 
There are quite a few "Christians" here who aren't very Christ-like. Jesus didn't turn people away because they sinned. He didn't shun people. He showed them love and compassion. When he said to spread God's word he didn't mean go shout at everyone about how wicked they were.

You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well I'm not "the left", but...

As soon as they register as a for profit business, such as and LLC, they can't "hide" behind their religious rights with regards to what the business offers when doing so would be a violation of the law and the customers civil rights.

The one seeming point of contention that has been brought up (honestly can't remember if it was this or another thread, I think it was the other)...

There's some disconnect that people have about WHAT services specifically such a business should be compelled to do.

For example my stance would be that if he was looking for an exemption to the law ONLY as it relates to the "Christian" wedding the hitching post offers, but not to the multitude of non-christian services it offers, I would not be having an issue here. His business specifically advertises doing services that are civil, non-traditional, and even for other religions. But he's asking for a religious exemption, even in the case of ceremonies that his business advertises for that are inherently NON-RELIGIOUS, and thus I have an issue.

For profit businesses can not claim "religious belief" as a reason for violating laws regulating commerce. If I claim that my religious belief is that a woman should not be able to purchase a good or service as they themselves are property, I could not use that as an excuse to deny service to women in my place of business. As a liscensed business operating open to the public a persons civil rights trumps my religious rights in that particular instance.
Click to expand...


so, let's forget this case for the moment

lets say it is a business, but they ONLY do christian weddings...and that is all they advertise for

would that change your mind?

zyphlin...i think you answered above.....but i wonder about the rest......

my question is this

how does a christian who doesnt believe in gay rights protect themselves, and yet still try to provide for their family?

where is the line in the sand drawn?

is there any tolerance from the "other side?"

and would the lgbt brigade target such a business just for spite?
 
gdgyva said:
lets say it is a business, but they ONLY do christian weddings...and that is all they advertise for

would that change your mind?
Click to expand...

For me personally, I would probably have a different mindset on that one.

Though one thing I'd want to find out...I actually don't know if it's legal for a FOR PROFIT liscensed business "chapel" to not offer a "civil" option. My guess would probably be it's not. Essentially, if you're going into the marriage "business", do you have to offer the various forms of legal marriage NOT just the religious one.

how does a christian who doesnt believe in gay rights protect themselves, and yet still try to provide for their family?
Click to expand...

I think you create some issues with your argument by highlighting an inherent bias by your continual focus on "christian" here, to be perfectly honest.

NO persons religion provides them an excuse to wantonly break the law and violate other peoples rights within the public square. There are uncountable amounts of jobs any religious person could do that doesn't keep them from practicing their religious beliefs nor forces them to partake in a different religion.

I've been answering your hypotheticals, you answer mine.

If someone proclaims that their religious belief is that women are property and as such have no standing to purchase goods or services....do you believe that they should be able to have their business that is open to the public simply refuse service to women? If not, how does a person with such a religion belief protect themselves and yet still provide for their family?
 
Last edited:
gdgyva said:
so, let's forget this case for the moment

lets say it is a business, but they ONLY do christian weddings...and that is all they advertise for

would that change your mind?

zyphlin...i think you answered above.....but i wonder about the rest......

my question is this

how does a christian who doesnt believe in gay rights protect themselves, and yet still try to provide for their family?

where is the line in the sand drawn?

is there any tolerance from the "other side?"

and would the lgbt brigade target such a business just for spite?
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical is stupid.

What if they only wanted to do white weddings?

See how stupid it is?

How Christian would it be to function as a church but profit from it? Even Jim Bakker admitted it was wrong.
 
Zyphlin said:
For me personally, I would probably have a different mindset on that one.

Though one thing I'd want to find out...I actually don't know if it's legal for a FOR PROFIT liscensed business "chapel" to not offer a "civil" option. My guess would probably be it's not. Essentially, if you're going into the marriage "business", do you have to offer the various forms of legal marriage NOT just the religious one.



I think you create some issues with your argument by highlighting an inherent bias by your continual focus on "christian" here, to be perfectly honest.

NO persons religion provides them an excuse to wantonly break the law and violate other peoples rights within the public square. There are uncountable amounts of jobs any religious person could do that doesn't keep them from practicing their religious beliefs nor forces them to partake in a different religion.

I've been answering your hypotheticals, you answer mine.

If someone proclaims that their religious belief is that women are property and as such have no standing to purchase goods or services....do you believe that they should be able to have their business that is open to the public simply refuse service to women? If not, how does a person with such a religion belief protect themselves and yet still provide for their family?
Click to expand...

i dont know of any religion that claims women are property....maybe there are some....but no one i know practices that religion

but hypothetically, yes......a business should be able to decline services to anyone they want UNLESS that declination will cause inherent harm

but i know plenty of christians who believe that SSM is wrong.....period

they dont want anything to do with it.....

i understand the public accommodation laws......

i dont have any problem with most parts of them......

but i do believe a person should be able to decline a service to someone, when they declination can cause them no inherent harm

there are other wedding chapels, other bakeries, other florists who would be happy to fulfill these requests

i see both sides of the argument......but imo this country was founded on certain principles

one of them had to do with religious freedom and free speech

off my soapbox.......
 
Oh these Christians and their "strongly held beliefs". :roll:

I know Christians who believe lying is wrong... period.

They still vote.
 
gdgyva said:
but hypothetically, yes......a business should be able to decline services to anyone they want UNLESS that declination will cause inherent harm
Click to expand...

Cool. So in general you're against public accomodation laws of any kind if a person CLAIMS (because there's few real way to prove in court what a person does or does not "believe", and as we've seen repeatedly there's all sorts of ways one can claim to "interprit" their religion) they have a religious reason for violating it. As long as you seemingly are consistent in your view (discriminate against gays, discriminate against whites, discriminate against christians, discriminate against women, discriminate against all of them due to their particular classification...as long as you claim it's for a rleigious reason) I can respect that even if I disagree.

Sadly, there have been VERY few people who have actually taken that stance. Almost everyone I've ran into but you and matchlight have basically gone "NO! It should be a special exception for teh gayz and them alone! It's perfectly fine for blacks/women/etc"
 
Zyphlin said:
Cool. So in general you're against public accomodation laws of any kind if a person CLAIMS (because there's few real way to prove in court what a person does or does not "believe", and as we've seen repeatedly there's all sorts of ways one can claim to "interprit" their religion) they have a religious reason for violating it. As long as you seemingly are consistent in your view (discriminate against gays, discriminate against whites, discriminate against christians, discriminate against women, discriminate against all of them due to their particular classification...as long as you claim it's for a rleigious reason) I can respect that even if I disagree.

Sadly, there have been VERY few people who have actually taken that stance. Almost everyone I've ran into but you and matchlight have basically gone "NO! It should be a special exception for teh gayz and them alone! It's perfectly fine for blacks/women/etc"
Click to expand...


The section you quoted required no "claims" to be made.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
The section you quoted required no "claims" to be made.

>>>>
Click to expand...

Ah, you're absolutely right. He's not suggesting the declining of service has to be for religious reasons, but that it should be for any reason. My mistake. The rest of my statement remains the same though even with that correction
 
Thorgasm said:
Your hypothetical is stupid.

What if they only wanted to do white weddings?

See how stupid it is?

How Christian would it be to function as a church but profit from it? Even Jim Bakker admitted it was wrong.
Click to expand...

There are two functions being performed on the property: A religous (peforming a marriage) and a secular: renting a hall

A. Black Customer: You are a for profit, pulbic access business and I want to rent your hall.
Owner: No, I dont want to rent it to you.

B. Black customer: I want you to personally marry my white wife and I
Owner: Ok, I"ll rent you the hall, but for old school cultural / "religous" reasons, I dont perform inter racial marraiges (well, unless you are my dip stick brother and his second mail order bride from the Phillipines).

A is discrimiantion, B is not.
 
Cryptic said:
There are two functions being performed on the property: A religous (peforming a marriage) and a secular: renting a hall

A. Black Customer: You are a for profit, pulbic access business and I want to rent your hall.
Owner: No, I dont want to rent it to you.

B. Black customer: I want you to personally marry my white wife and I
Owner: Ok, I"ll rent you the hall, but for old school cultural / "religous" reasons, I dont perform inter racial marraiges (well, unless you are my dip stick brother and his second mail order bride from the Phillipines).

A is discrimiantion, B is not.
Click to expand...

And what if said Owner B offers and advertises a civil, non-religious, non-traditional marriage option normally and Black Customer B is asking for that, not the religious ceremony?
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah, you're absolutely right. He's not suggesting the declining of service has to be for religious reasons, but that it should be for any reason. My mistake. The rest of my statement remains the same though even with that correction
Click to expand...


Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​



In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses when discriminatory practices become public knowledge.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​


**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Fedreal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, thats the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​



In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses when discriminatory practices become public knowledge.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​


**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Fedreal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, thats the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>
Click to expand...

What a bunch of hullabaloo. Race has nothing to do with marriage. That is why it was found to be unconstitutional for those to deny interracial marriages. Jeesh!

We are not talking about getting rid of non-discrimination laws but when you go and redefine marriage, you have forced anyone of a religious moral conscience who recognizes marriage as something sacred between a man and a woman who works in the industry of providing services for weddings, forcing them to use their own person to provide something they find to be a sin under penalty of fines and jail time, it is unjust by any standard. These people would rather decline the business and the profit connected to it in order not to violate their own conscience. Whether you agree with them or not on their beliefs is moot.

And for the record for those who have engaged in character assassination from calling the Knapp's hypocrites, implying they were fakes, at the New American they ran an article that included the church that the Knapp's received their ordination. It is a church that has been established in this country since the 1880's during a time in our history called the "Holiness Movement". The name of the church is International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, a conservative Pentecostal denomination.

Idaho Ministers Face Jail for Refusing Same-sex "Marriage" Ceremonies

It's a crying ass shame there are so many willing to allow another's moral conscience be trampled allowing him to be discriminated against in the name of non-discrimination laws.
 
Zyphlin said:
And what if said Owner B offers and advertises a civil, non-religious, non-traditional marriage option normally and Black Customer B is asking for that, not the religious ceremony?
Click to expand...


You know they updated their site, and pretty recently. As current as 10/9 it still had civil marriages. SSCM became legal on 10/15 and sometime after the 9th the site was changed.



>>>>
 
vesper said:
What a bunch of hullabaloo. Race has nothing to do with marriage. That is why it was found to be unconstitutional for those to deny interracial marriages. Jeesh!
Click to expand...


There is a fundamental concept that when we examine laws created to target a specific group (as bans on SSCM were), that like situated groups are examined to determine whether there is a compelling government interest that justifies such laws.

OK. So now please explain, in terms of government what is the legal argument that provide the compelling government interest as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex relationship can enter into a Civil Marriage and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex relationship are denied (in some states) equal treatment under the law.





(NOTE: Religion isn't a justifiable reason and as the court has pointed out in other cases, "tradition" is not such a reason.)


(ETA: And yes, I'm saying that my opinion is that we don't need to give "special rights" to those that claim an religious view to be exempt from the law. I'm saying it's time to have a serious discussion in this country about Public Accommodation laws, maybe a repeal. On the other hand there may be room to compromise based on the type of business, the services of the business, the number of employees, or maybe allow discrimination only on with public notice.)


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Cool. So in general you're against public accomodation laws of any kind if a person CLAIMS (because there's few real way to prove in court what a person does or does not "believe", and as we've seen repeatedly there's all sorts of ways one can claim to "interprit" their religion) they have a religious reason for violating it. As long as you seemingly are consistent in your view (discriminate against gays, discriminate against whites, discriminate against christians, discriminate against women, discriminate against all of them due to their particular classification...as long as you claim it's for a rleigious reason) I can respect that even if I disagree.

Sadly, there have been VERY few people who have actually taken that stance. Almost everyone I've ran into but you and matchlight have basically gone "NO! It should be a special exception for teh gayz and them alone! It's perfectly fine for blacks/women/etc"
Click to expand...

where we have to have public accommodation laws

1. government.....everyone has to be treated exactly the same way
2. hospitals/emergency rooms.....cant turn away anyone that needs emergency care
3. public conveyance.....taxis, buses, trains, planes.....

There are probably a few more that need to go on that list, but you get the gist

When there are numerous businesses in an area, one turning you away is an inconvenience.....

But yes, i believe in private property rights probably above most others......and even though in some cases, i think it is stupid, i think it should be a owners right to refuse service

If that causes him to go bankrupt faster, so be it......then at least it is the public that made the decision......not some judge sitting in a chamber somewhere screwing with the constitution

I always have believed in the marketplace.......you can listen to what the market wants, or not.....it is always a choice

but be ready to have your head handed to you if you make the wrong one........
 
gdgyva said:
where we have to have public accommodation laws

1. government.....everyone has to be treated exactly the same way
Click to expand...

That's not true. That's not what Public Accommodation laws do.

(If you are implying that government is saying that everyone must be treated exactly the same by business.)


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
That's not true. That's not what Public Accommodation laws do.

(If you are implying that government is saying that everyone must be treated exactly the same by business.)


>>>>
Click to expand...


places like the dmv

or government offices.......

there can be NO discrimination allowed in those types of places

that is what i meant.........
 
gdgyva said:
places like the dmv

or government offices.......

there can be NO discrimination allowed in those types of places

that is what i meant.........
Click to expand...


Ahhh... Thanks for the clarification. I interpreted what you wrote is that the government had mandated that everyone treat everyone else exactly the same.



>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom