Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration
1.)Ahh, I get it. You thought I claimed to have seen such cases. I didn't. If you would care to reread the line of enquiry, I simply said that I would consider the success of such a lawsuit as being likely.
2.)Furthermore the article in question is not an example of expanding religious rights. Previously the institution was allowed to discriminate based on sexuality. Now they aren't.
3.) Regarding your example with religious institutions of healing, you are somewhat off-target. Religious institutions used to be able to choose who they offered treatment, today they aren't.
4.)The premise of your question is illogical. The poll asks if churches will legally be obliged to perform marriages for people they don't want to. Not if they are already required to do so.
5.) In law, hurt feelings are referred to as "Emotional Distress". Here is an example.
Emotional Distress Claims: a Future Trend in Oklahoma? | Human Resources News
I'm sure we both agree that the employer was out of line, and should be required to pay compensation. However, 20 years ago, he most likely wouldn't be. 50 years ago, the employee would have been laughed out of court. 200 years ago, the employer could have beat him silly and not faced any charges. Like the previous example, this describes a trend.
1.) not thats not what i think, i was asking you WHY you have the reasoning you do. When you stated because of civil cases, yes i wanted you to expand on that but thats it., and i STILL have that question as to why you see it as likely.
2.) yes it is . . . just cause it was going on doesnt mean they were "allowed" or that it wasnt a rights violation it just wasnt pushed or fought against
some things have to be challenged . . just like gay rights . . .
banning marriage, gay marriage was in fact the state overstepping its boundaries and that was challenged and it is losing
3.) correct because once challenged it was found to violate rights
4.) I agree the question is illogical but not for the reasons you claim
I agree its illogical because the idea that it will happen is illogical, but there are some here that swear its right around the corner
5.) i didnt ask what anybody thinks emotional distress was i ask for cases that show a trend to support the churches being forced to do marriages.
your opinion of that case and how it would of done 20, 50, 200 years ago doesnt do so since the constitution exist and that wasnt a church :shrug:
I dont understand why the question is so trying for you?
im simply asking you what your reasoning is for you to think its likely a church will be forced to do marriages it doesnt want to.
all that aside we are getting sidetracked
maybe im not being specific enough. Im looking for logical, fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely based on legality/rights/constitution etc. . .
Dont get me wrong you are free to just feel its likely for whatever reason you want but i was looking for answer that could factually hold weight, other than subjectively
so i only have ONE question, forget the rest, basically do you have anything besides just a gut feeling or hunches, thats what im looking for, something with some logical meat to it, something again, im looking for something fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely on legality/rights/constitution etc
do you have anything like that?