• 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
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

No, but owning a business does not negate your First Amendment rights.

No, but owning a business means you are subject to business regulations. And you don't get to say no to those regulations because you want to claim your religion does not like them. This is well established constitutional law.
 
In both cases it is about people being contientous objectors.

No it's not.

One is an actual worship center of a religion, a central undeniable entity to the idea of "practicing" one's religion. A not-for-profit religious entity is acting solely as an entity of that religion. The government has no grounds to dictate that a religious institution must perform an action that inherently prohibits its operators from practicing their rleigion.

One is a PLACE OF BUSINESS that has ZERO religious designations tied to it. It is a FOR PROFIT entity functioning within the public square. The government absolutely has grounds in such a case to dictate what actions said business must undertake as it relates to protecting the rights of others also functioning within that public square.

"Practicing" ones religion does not entail a protection in any and every action you take in all walks of life. This is why, for example, if your religion called for you to paint a pentagram on a wall you would be free to do it to your hearts content in your own home...but if you did it to your neighbors house without permission it'd be vandalism.

"Contientious objectors" has NOTHING at all to do with anti-discrimination laws. None what so ever. The fact you're trying to interject that is ridiculous.
 
Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?[/SIZE][/B]

My thoughts TK.
We have freedom of religion in this country.Forcing a church ie a group of people to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is an infringement on their religion.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Owning a business is not exercising your religion.

Unfortunately, there's a whole heck of a lot of people out there who get 'business' and 'religion' confused. All one need do is to look at the churches who are *cough*goingoutofbusiness*cough* choosing to sell their chapels and, um, relocate to smaller (or nonexistent) locations...like maybe P.O. Boxes....

I say that as a strong Christian, and the Church of which I am a member is most certainly growing. But a whole heck of a lot of churches out there...ain't really churches.
 
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.

To me it seems a queer way of thinking. We decided that saying a prayer and protecting the country do not override contientious objection, while selling a cake does.
 
We have freedom of religion in this country.Forcing a church ie a group of people to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is an infringement on their religion.

What I want to know is why are we even paying attention to the obviously strawman argument? NO religion in America has been forced to perform gay marriages or to accept gay couples, and NOBODY on the left is supporting forcing them to do so!

The ONLY people who are even talking about it are the conservatives and evangelicals who are Absolutely Sure that those 'godless lib'ruls' are a-gonna do it now that the Black Kenyan Muslim Commie-Nazi-Socialist took over the White House.
 
No it's not.

One is an actual worship center of a religion, a central undeniable entity to the idea of "practicing" one's religion. A not-for-profit religious entity is acting solely as an entity of that religion. The government has no grounds to dictate that a religious institution must perform an action that inherently prohibits its operators from practicing their rleigion.

One is a PLACE OF BUSINESS that has ZERO religious designations tied to it. It is a FOR PROFIT entity functioning within the public square. The government absolutely has grounds in such a case to dictate what actions said business must undertake as it relates to protecting the rights of others also functioning within that public square.

"Practicing" ones religion does not entail a protection in any and every action you take in all walks of life. This is why, for example, if your religion called for you to paint a pentagram on a wall you would be free to do it to your hearts content in your own home...but if you did it to your neighbors house without permission it'd be vandalism.

"Contientious objectors" has NOTHING at all to do with anti-discrimination laws. None what so ever. The fact you're trying to interject that is ridiculous.

Don't be silly.
 
What I want to know is why are we even paying attention to the obviously strawman argument? NO religion in America has been forced to perform gay marriages or to accept gay couples, and NOBODY on the left is supporting forcing them to do so!

The ONLY people who are even talking about it are the conservatives and evangelicals who are Absolutely Sure that those 'godless lib'ruls' are a-gonna do it now that the Black Kenyan Muslim Commie-Nazi-Socialist took over the White House.

They are forcing people with religious and moral opposition to gay marriage to make wedding cakes, and hold wedding receptions for gay weddings.So what is to stop them from doing that to a church?
 
They are forcing people with religious and moral opposition to gay marriage to make wedding cakes, and hold wedding receptions for gay weddings.So what is to stop them from doing that to a church?

Say a baker - who operates a store that is open to the public - opposes gay marriage doesn't want to bake a cake for two women marrying each other. If he can legally say that he doesn't have to serve them, then if he chooses not to serve blacks or mixed-race couples or atheists, he can do that, too.

And that is patently illegal

The difference between a church and a business that's open to the public is that the two are NOT the same. A church is NOT a business that's open to the public. A church CAN say who can and cannot belong to it.

That, sir, is why the baker can't discriminate, but churches can.
 
Say a baker - who operates a store that is open to the public - opposes gay marriage doesn't want to bake a cake for two women marrying each other. If he can legally say that he doesn't have to serve them, then if he chooses not to serve blacks or mixed-race couples or atheists, he can do that, too.

And that is patently illegal

The difference between a church and a business that's open to the public is that the two are NOT the same. A church is NOT a business that's open to the public. A church CAN say who can and cannot belong to it.

That, sir, is why the baker can't discriminate, but churches can.

Anybody else going to see Selma tonight?
 
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.

If you are a baker that makes wedding cakes and can't make birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, office party cakes, retirement cakes, Black Forrest Cake, Bunt Cake, Cheesecake, Christmas Cake, Easter Cake, 4th of July Cake, Coffee Cake, Cupcakes, muffins, brownies, cookies, scones, Breads, Pies, and other various baked goods...


You are in the wrong profession.



>>>>>
 
If you are a baker that makes wedding cakes and can't make birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, office party cakes, retirement cakes, Black Forrest Cake, Bunt Cake, Cheesecake, Christmas Cake, Easter Cake, 4th of July Cake, Coffee Cake, Cupcakes, muffins, brownies, cookies, scones, Breads, Pies, and other various baked goods...


You are in the wrong profession.



>>>>>

In the case here the baker could bake the other cakes to.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

No, but owning a business means you are subject to business regulations. And you don't get to say no to those regulations because you want to claim your religion does not like them. This is well established constitutional law.

Those regulations, like all other laws, are required to comply with the Constitution, including the First Amendment, or else government is acting illegally in imposing them.

Government isn't legitimately allowed to pick and choose where the Constitution applies and where it does not. It always applies, everywhere.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Those regulations, like all other laws, are required to comply with the Constitution, including the First Amendment, or else government is acting illegally in imposing them.

Government isn't legitimately allowed to pick and choose where the Constitution applies and where it does not. It always applies, everywhere.

OK, still not sure where your confusion comes in. Laws are not a violation of the constitution, nor are business regulations. Being religious does not exempt you from those laws. The first amendment does not mean that the government cannot enforce laws that people claim are against there religion.
 
In the case here the baker could bake the other cakes to.


That's case "here", as in this thread, is about Churches not bakers.

But your right, bakers have a line of products they can produce. Therefore choosing not to bake wedding cakes (since if a good or service is not offered to the general public Public Accommodation laws don't apply) means the baker would not be forced out of the profession as you claimed.


>>>>
 
81601297-same-sex-couple-ariel-owens-and-his-spouse-joseph-barham.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

gay-marriage.gi.top.jpg


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.

Here again yet another poll where you do not give Independents or Centrists an opportunity to vote.
 
81601297-same-sex-couple-ariel-owens-and-his-spouse-joseph-barham.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

gay-marriage.gi.top.jpg


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.

Absolutely not. It's entirely up to the Church as to whether or not they want to perform those ceremonies. It cannot be forced with government guns.
 
To me it seems a queer way of thinking. We decided that saying a prayer and protecting the country do not override contientious objection, while selling a cake does.

I'm sorry I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Being religious doesn't make a person immune to local and state law.

I'm not tracking the prayer example. Do you mean school prayer? Isn't that compelling someone to pray?

When "protecting the country" can potentially mean being ordered to commit violence, surely a moral objection makes sense to some.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

OK, still not sure where your confusion comes in. Laws are not a violation of the constitution, nor are business regulations. Being religious does not exempt you from those laws. The first amendment does not mean that the government cannot enforce laws that people claim are against there religion.

Laws are a violation of the Constitution when they violate the Constitution. Being the owner of a business does not exempt government from being required to refrain from violating your Constitutional rights.

The First Amendment does, in fact, mean exactly that government may not enact nor enforce laws which deprive any person of the rights affirmed in the First Amendment.
 
No, they should not.

Where are all these other "left-yes" votes coming from? More than 20 in the poll, but just one named poster.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Laws are a violation of the Constitution when they violate the Constitution. Being the owner of a business does not exempt government from being required to refrain from violating your Constitutional rights.

The First Amendment does, in fact, mean exactly that government may not enact nor enforce laws which deprive any person of the rights affirmed in the First Amendment.

Again, being religious does not exempt one from the law, nor does it make laws that regulate business unconstitutional. Read this next part carefully, it is the point you continue to try and not address: You do not get to declare that your religion does not allow you to follow the law. If you open a for profit business(as opposed to a church), then you are agreeing to abide by the regulations for that business. Being religious does not change that.

By the way, just to make this point again, the thread is about churches, I wonder why you are trying so hard to talk about something other than churches? Bet I predicted this earlier...
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Again, being religious does not exempt one from the law, nor does it make laws that regulate business unconstitutional. Read this next part carefully, it is the point you continue to try and not address: You do not get to declare that your religion does not allow you to follow the law. If you open a for profit business(as opposed to a church), then you are agreeing to abide by the regulations for that business. Being religious does not change that.

By the way, just to make this point again, the thread is about churches, I wonder why you are trying so hard to talk about something other than churches? Bet I predicted this earlier...

The First Amendment makes no distinction between churches, and other organizations or individuals. The rights that it affirms belong to all. Government is not allowed to enact or enforce laws which violate these rights.

Not only does the First Amendment not allow for government to pick and choose who may or may not be allowed these rights, but the Fourteenth Amendment rather explicitly forbids any such denial of equal protection under the law.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

The First Amendment makes no distinction between churches, and other organizations or individuals. The rights that it affirms belong to all. Government is not allowed to enact or enforce laws which violate these rights.

Not only does the First Amendment not allow for government to pick and choose who may or may not be allowed these rights, but the Fourteenth Amendment rather explicitly forbids any such denial of equal protection under the law.

you keep repeating this unsupportable strawman but no facts support you
history, the constitution, laws, facts and many court cases all prove your spin wrong . . remind us what you have on your side?
we'll stick with facts
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

The First Amendment makes no distinction between churches, and other organizations or individuals. The rights that it affirms belong to all. Government is not allowed to enact or enforce laws which violate these rights.

Not only does the First Amendment not allow for government to pick and choose who may or may not be allowed these rights, but the Fourteenth Amendment rather explicitly forbids any such denial of equal protection under the law.

Precisely. Religion is not "something you do in a church".
 
Back
Top Bottom