• 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!

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    93
It was someone that applauded forcing a baker to supply a wedding in a debate a while ago but said here there was no reason to force a priest do a similar wedding. It seemed inconsistent.

I believe the link you're missing is that these businesses agree to not discriminate as a requirement of being a licensed business.

They enter those agreements voluntarily.
 
No. There are lots of factories, bakeries and confectioners'. That is why forcing a baker that concientously objects to bake a cake for a gay wedding is so absurd.

No one is forcing him to bake anything, he can close up shop anytime he wants. I hope those that conscientiously object to taking money from someone for his product would realize he is in the wrong line of work. You can't pick and choose your customers in a retail business. That would be absurd.
 
I believe the link you're missing is that these businesses agree to not discriminate as a requirement of being a licensed business.

They enter those agreements voluntarily.

Not to mention that refusing money for your product is a sign you are not very good at running a business.
 
If you keep up with the news you'll see lots of inconsistent things happen in the USA.

That's one thing that's consistent in the USA- inconsistency. :roll:

That does not make it better; just more frequent.
 
I believe the link you're missing is that these businesses agree to not discriminate as a requirement of being a licensed business.

They enter those agreements voluntarily.

That is not quite voluntary, if you cannot otherwise work in your profession. It's just another type of coercion.
 
No one is forcing him to bake anything, he can close up shop anytime he wants. I hope those that conscientiously object to taking money from someone for his product would realize he is in the wrong line of work. You can't pick and choose your customers in a retail business. That would be absurd.

Yep. Force is always a good way to make people do things. Ask any slave.
 
That it is not fair to force bakers to serve gay marriage against there conscientious objection but not a priest. One sells cake and as you say the other sells faith. So why treat the one other than the other?

One is a not-for-profit religious entity...the other is a for profit business entity functioning in the public square.

They are treated differently because they absolutely are different.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from all laws and regulations. The more you know...:prof

The Constitution is the highest law in this land. All other lesser laws and regulations are required to comply with it.

The First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, establishes rights to free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression. Lesser laws are not allowed to deny these rights.
 
No one is forcing him to bake anything, he can close up shop anytime he wants. I hope those that conscientiously object to taking money from someone for his product would realize he is in the wrong line of work. You can't pick and choose your customers in a retail business. That would be absurd.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows government to compel anyone to give up any of the rights established therein as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

The Constitution is the highest law in this land. All other lesser laws and regulations are required to comply with it.

The First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, establishes rights to free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression. Lesser laws are not allowed to deny these rights.

You might want to go read that first amendment again and learn what it says. Hint: it does not say that religious people can claim to be exempt from laws they do not like. I know the constitution, better than you apparently.
 
Personally, I think the only marriages the State/Feds should be involved with are civil ones. If people want a church wedding as well, fine, but the only one that should count as far as taxes and other benefits is a contract you file at the state level. No need for church approval or disapproval.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

You might want to go read that first amendment again and learn what it says. Hint: it does not say that religious people can claim to be exempt from laws they do not like. I know the constitution, better than you apparently.

Yeah. Suggesting that "the practice there of" regarding a religion extends out so much that it means simply how you live and function in every aspect of life is just unreasonably broad and non-sensical.

I claim my religion preaches that time is of the essence and never waste a moment of life. As such, speed limit laws are disallowing the "practice" of my religion. So I can ignore them or else you're infringing on my right to practice my religion.

I claim my religion preaches to engage in a hedonistic and decouherous life style so as to enjoy life to the fullest. As such, drug laws, gambling, and prostitution laws should not be able to be enforced upon me or else you're infringing on my right to practice my religion.

I claim my religion preaches that clothes are but a shackle of the soul and should be shed at all times. As such, public decency laws should simply not apply to me or else the government is keeping me from "practicing" my religion.

The reality is that when you function within the public square, as a business does, the social contract of the nation acknowledges that you divest some of your rights in respect for the rights of others within the society due to the conflict that arises between both sides attempting to exercises their rights. This process is codified by the laws of the country.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

You might want to go read that first amendment again and learn what it says. Hint: it does not say that religious people can claim to be exempt from laws they do not like. I know the constitution, better than you apparently.

No, it doesn't, nor do I claim that it does. It says that Congress (and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all other levels of government) cannot enact laws which needlessly violate the right to free practice of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not correct to characterize this as one claiming a religious exemption from a law as it is that if the law conflicts with one's religious principles, then it was never a valid law in the first place.
 
We hear much about gay marriage these days, both in the media and in politics. However, many religions (not just Christians) are expressly against gay marriage. There are exceptions, but in general that is the current situation.

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?

My thoughts TK.

Since when have ANY churches been forced to perform gay marriages or to accept gay couples as members? This is a classic strawman argument.
 
Or perhaps it is a sign that one has moral principles that one values above money.

If you have moral principles about taking money for your product then you should not be in business. Go work for a charity or something.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

No, it doesn't, nor do I claim that it does. It says that Congress (and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all other levels of government) cannot enact laws which needlessly violate the right to free practice of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not correct to characterize this as one claiming a religious exemption from a law as it is that if the law conflicts with one's religious principles, then it was never a valid law in the first place.

Owning a business is not exercising your religion.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

No, it doesn't, nor do I claim that it does. It says that Congress (and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all other levels of government) cannot enact laws which needlessly violate the right to free practice of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not correct to characterize this as one claiming a religious exemption from a law as it is that if the law conflicts with one's religious principles, then it was never a valid law in the first place.

The Supreme Court has clarified that by stating "Freedom of faith is absolute, freedom of actions is not". There are many things you cannot do because of your religion. Discrimination is only one of them.
 
One sells cake and as you say the other sells faith. So why treat the one other than the other?

Selling faith is a cynical concept...and equivocation ftl.
 
One is a not-for-profit religious entity...the other is a for profit business entity functioning in the public square.

They are treated differently because they absolutely are different.

In both cases it is about people being contientous objectors.

And it also seems bizarre that we decided that defense of the Nation did not override conscience, while baking a cake does.
 
Selling faith is a cynical concept...and equivocation ftl.

I was just using the girl's word. Keeping in line with her thinking. It was wrong.
 
That is not quite voluntary, if you cannot otherwise work in your profession. It's just another type of coercion.

I'm not aware of any guarantee'd right to work in the profession of your choice.

Some areas have different restrictions, so possibly they could move to one that suits them better.

Or they could sell their cakes to a licensed baker for resale, and not worry their pretty little heads about where they end up.

But if they agree to be bound by the law (by applying for the license) then I know of no reason they shouldn't be bound by the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom