View Poll Results: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?

Voters
212. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO

    179 84.43%
  • YES

    22 10.38%
  • OTHER

    11 5.19%
Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 325

Thread: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?

  1. #141
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Being "concerned" that something might happen in the future is not legal grounds for a lawsuit. Not one that you will win anyway.
    The suit was not for damages, it was a request for a restraining order against enforcing 9.56 against the couple who filed it. I'm no legal expert, but it would surprise me if restraining orders in the US could not be filed preemptively.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  2. #142
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience. They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.
    If they can't handle backlash from the public for their discriminatory business decisions, they deserve to go out of business and it has absolutely nothing to do with legal action. So far not a single antigay business owner has been put out of business due to legal action against them for discriminatory practices. They have either faced strong negative public reaction, bringing down their sales dramatically or chose to change their business. The one business, SweetCakes by Melissa hasn't even been handed down a fine/judgment yet and still claim they went out of business (storefront) due to the legal action. Even most if not all of their legal fees were covered by someone else, some other group. You cannot force people to buy something from a business they do not agree with.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #143
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    The suit was not for damages, it was a request for a restraining order against enforcing 9.56 against the couple who filed it. I'm no legal expert, but it would surprise me if restraining orders in the US could not be filed preemptively.
    Which is not the purpose of restraining orders. Either the law applies to them, in which the restraining order could not be used to prevent legitimate legal action against them, or it doesn't, in which the restraining order is completely pointless. They are wasting the courts time, which they should pay for.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #144
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Which is not the purpose of restraining orders. Either the law applies to them, in which the restraining order could not be used to prevent legitimate legal action against them, or it doesn't, in which the restraining order is completely pointless. They are wasting the courts time, which they should pay for.
    It sounds to me like you're saying that if a court sentences someone according to a law and a higher court later retroactively decides that the law was inapplicable, no damage could have been incurred by the defendants in the meantime.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  5. #145
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    The suit states that "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance 9.56". This was filed October 17th.
    You may be right, but that would mean the attorney lied when he filed the suit.
    No it doesn't mean they "lied", it means they were reacting to a reply to an inquiry by The Hitching Post (S Corp) from the May/June time frame. Since the complaint was filed on the 17th, it would of course had no mention of the City memo dated October 23rd - after the filing.

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    I'm not disposed to believe that is the case until I see something a bit more convincing.
    You are of course free to believe as you wish, but the fact is that the City has notified the owners of The Hitching Post (LLC) that they qualify as a religious corporation and are not subject to the law.

    Hitching Post exempt - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    I'm not sure why you keep mentioning October 23rd in relation to the suit, as any events on that day could not have influenced the Knapps in filing it.
    Correct, however the 23rd is when the City told The Hitching Post that they are not subject to the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    The Knapps obviously disagreed since they filed a suit claiming so.
    They are free to disagree, dosen't change the facts of the timeline.


    >>>>

  6. #146
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    It sounds to me like you're saying that if a court sentences someone according to a law and a higher court later retroactively decides that the law was inapplicable, no damage could have been incurred by the defendants in the meantime.
    That has nothing to do with this case. If a judge decided that the law applies to them, then that decision is overturned later, the restraining order wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't change how much damages they incurred whether they had the restraining order or not.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #147
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    I don't believe they will be compelled to perform ceremonies. They have gone years with the ability to deny marriage rites for a variety of reasons. Getting married in a church is not the only means of legalizing a marriage, and as long as that is the case I see no likelihood of churches being mandated to perform any/all ceremonies requested of them.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    I don't think it's "rational," per se.

    However, I certainly do believe that there are a number of people out there would like to see something along those lines happen.

  9. #149
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    I don't think it's "rational," per se.

    However, I certainly do believe that there are a number of people out there would like to see something along those lines happen.
    theres a number of people out there that thinks the terroristic act of blowing up abortion clinics is justified that doesnt mean much
    pointing out that those people are extremist is the point lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #150
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    No it doesn't mean they "lied", it means they were reacting to a reply to an inquiry by The Hitching Post (S Corp) from the May/June time frame. Since the complaint was filed on the 17th, it would of course had no mention of the City memo dated October 23rd - after the filing.
    "Still". Adverb. - Happening or existing before now and continuing into the present.
    A small deviation would seem natural, but we are talking 5 months. I would at the very least call that a misrepresentation of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Correct, however the 23rd is when the City told The Hitching Post that they are not subject to the law.
    And since that is not in dispute, nor relevant to the suit at the time it was filed, I fail to see why you keep mentioning it.
    I did agree with you that the suit is now pretty much irrelevant a few posts back, you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    They are free to disagree, dosen't change the facts of the timeline.
    If that was an appeal to authority, it wasn't a very convincing one. The merits of any case are up to the judge or jury to decide.
    We are starting to go over ground we've covered already, so unless you have something new to add...
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •