• 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?

is there anybody that buys into the irrational fear that based on equal rights churches will be forced to marry "da gays" . . .please admit it now . . thanks
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

is there anybody that buys into the irrational fear that based on equal rights churches will be forced to marry "da gays" . . .please admit it now . . thanks

Given the rather authoritarian behavior of left and right, I don't buy into any restraint by government against our rights and liberties.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

is there anybody that buys into the irrational fear that based on equal rights churches will be forced to marry "da gays" . . .please admit it now . . thanks

That line was crossed when businesses such as bakeries and florists and photographers were successfully sued for refusing to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings.

That line has been crossed, and if it is allowed to stand, then there remains nothing in the way of forcing the same thing on churches and ministers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

That line was crossed when businesses such as bakeries and florists and photographers were successfully sue for refusing to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings.

That line has been crossed, and if it is allowed to stand, then there remains nothing in the way of forcing the same thing on churches and ministers.

So, now your florist and baker is like clergy?

I am curious, if I confess something to the baker who made my Kringle, can he testify in court about what I said? :lamo

If the cake is the same type of cake that the baker normally makes and the flower arrangements are similar to those he normally arranges - the behavior is garden variety discrimination. If they want to freely discriminate in such a manner, there are ways to operate your business so that you do not need to accommodate everyone.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

So, now your florist and baker is like clergy?

The Constitution certainly makes no distinction between them. A baker has exactly the same First Amendment rights as a clergyman.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

The Constitution certainly makes no distinction between them. A baker has exactly the same First Amendment rights as a clergyman.

Take it up with the Supreme Court.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson​
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson​
I seem to understand that in the US, the SCOTUS pretty much has final say in this land.

So like I said....take it up with SCOTUS.
 
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.

Someone's punking the poll, I'm guessing. 20 is a pretty lame effort thought. I had, probably, 300 fake votes in my Palin poll. I have to appreciate that commitment.
 
No, at least not now. You have to respect the rights of the church.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

1.)That line was crossed when businesses such as bakeries and florists and photographers were successfully sued for refusing to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings.

2.) That line has been crossed, and if it is allowed to stand

3.) then there remains nothing in the way of forcing the same thing on churches and ministers.


1.) well since this has factually never happened no line was crossed. Please stick to facts and not made up fantasies BUT thank you for answering and saying you think its possible even though your reasoning is based on a lie.

2.) the line has factually NEVER been crossed, repeating the lie that it has wont make it true.

3.) yes theres nothing in the way except the constitution, rights, laws, and countless cases of court precedence and the 1000s or occurrences of legal church discrimption that probably happen a day in this country. LOL
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

The Constitution certainly makes no distinction between them. A baker has exactly the same First Amendment rights as a clergyman.

100% correct to bad in both cases neither of thier first amendment rights are violated
would you like to try another failed strawman
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Given the rather authoritarian behavior of left and right, I don't buy into any restraint by government against our rights and liberties.

ok that TWO people that think this lunacy is possible anybody else?

also Im curious what do YOU base this fear on?
just in your opinion the governments "lack of restraint", peoples authoritarian behavior, equal rights for gays all of the above or other things?
 
Churches shouldn't be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

I think minimal standards should be enforced at least, such as building codes, fire safety, not advocating murder, etc
 
Churches shouldn't be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

I agree 100% with one possible exception.

I think a good many should be investigated and possibly forced to start paying taxes.
Other than that...they should have 100% freedom to be as biased, ignorant, and discriminatory as desired.
 
If God [or his Son] came down and announced to the entire world that SSM should be legal and performed in all churches, then OK.

Otherwise, "are you serious"
 
I agree 100% with one possible exception.

I think a good many should be investigated and possibly forced to start paying taxes.
Other than that...they should have 100% freedom to be as biased, ignorant, and discriminatory as desired.

The whole premise of this thread is biased, ignorant, and discriminatory.
 
I agree 100% with one possible exception.

I think a good many should be investigated and possibly forced to start paying taxes.
Other than that...they should have 100% freedom to be as biased, ignorant, and discriminatory as desired.

I have to agree.

If you want to give them so sort of basic deduction fine - but other deductions should be based on their "good deeds" - if they give to the homeless,poor, hungry -totally deductible. If they run a clinic for the homeless (etc) don't just deduct -help them out (as long as the clinic is non discriminatory). Running an afterschool program for neighborhood impoverished youth? Hell yeah - don't just allow deductions - give them help.

But any deduction allowing for 200 million dollar buildings and folks driving high end cars, etc? Not feeling it.
 
The whole premise of this thread is biased, ignorant, and discriminatory.

In what way?

From what I see, the overwhelming majority of people here believe churches should have complete and ultimate control over what they do and for whom.

Perhaps I don't get what you mean?
 
I won't respond posting my vote per the poll selections because I don't think my political lean has anything to do with my stance on the poll question. That said, I don't think churches should be forced to wed any couple whom it doesn't believe is ready for marriage whether gay or straight or if it doesn't sanction the type of marriage in question (gay marriage in this case). If the gay (or straight) couple still desires to be wed, they can either find another church that will perform the marriage ceremony or go to the Justice of the Peace in their respective county/district.

It's just that simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom