Tyranny of the Left
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Idaho could hardly be called a leftest state and the truth is when it comes to a
definition of left right in America there is no left even Obama would be considered
center right up here in Canada. The problem is the law has come into conflict
with religion and the personal view of a church minister.
There is also a legal term and non discrimination ordinance in the community.
the church and its ministers at the moment have a higher law about religious
freedom with is in many cases using the law to push a discriminatory agenda.
However I personally think the church laws whatever the religion should have to
conform to the laws of the State regardless. All citizens should obey the law.
Even Christ said that "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" the law belongs to
the state.
definition of left right in America there is no left even Obama would be considered
center right up here in Canada. The problem is the law has come into conflict
with religion and the personal view of a church minister.
There is also a legal term and non discrimination ordinance in the community.
the church and its ministers at the moment have a higher law about religious
freedom with is in many cases using the law to push a discriminatory agenda.
However I personally think the church laws whatever the religion should have to
conform to the laws of the State regardless. All citizens should obey the law.
Even Christ said that "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" the law belongs to
the state.
To be honest, these ministers - if they're part of a real church and not one of those 'ordained online' or some sort of cult/exclusive club type thing - shouldn't be tried. They're following their beliefs and in this case, being told they have to marry gays is not right. The state shouldn't be forcing the church to perform ceremonies.
That said, gonna look into this more to see if there is more to the story.
That said, gonna look into this more to see if there is more to the story.
Why should online or cult like be any less protected from state attack?
I was thinking the same thing.
Here ya go. Not quite forcing ordained ministers to perform same sex marriage ceremonies though. In fact, they are specifically exempt from the city ordinance.
Hitching Post sues Coeur d'Alene after declining to marry gay couple - Spokesman.com - Oct. 17, 2014
Lol. Well Go Pro is hands free, lol.
Anyway.......it is not about threatening to jail ordained ministers or forcing churches to perform these ceremonies. In fact, the churches are purposely exempt from this legislation. It really all hinges, from what I can see, is whether or not this place qualifies as a church or if it is a business. Which is a sticky question in an of itself, without all the hyperbole. While I wouldn't want to see a return to the likes of 'whites only counters or fountains', it brings up the question of what a private service is and what a public service is, in terms of business service, and what restrictions, if any, can be placed by them or upon them.
Whatever happened to getting married at City Hall?
Why anyone would want to be married at an institution that relocates you to an eternity of suffering because you don't adhere to their doctrine is really beyond me.
Speaking of tyranny, that would qualify I think.
Why anyone would want to be married at an institution that relocates you to an eternity of suffering because you don't adhere to their doctrine is really beyond me.
Speaking of tyranny, that would qualify I think.
Why get married at all nowadays....the same regulations applies to common law even tax savings....
There are some differences in the event of one person dying. Some things go automatically to the spouse but common law, while having the same tax benefits, is not technically considered a spouse in the eyes of the probate court.
Woldn't matter with me.....everything is in both names....save a lot of lawyers fee that way....
Personally I wouldn't bother. Not again anyway. But there is a difference between saying "why get married" and "you can't get married".
It's not a church, it's a for-profit wedding chapel. Thus, it's a "place of public accommodation," and cannot discriminate under Coeur d'Alene's civil rights law, just as a for-profit motel or a for-profit restaurant cannot bar same-sex couples.
The law does not apply to churches.
Unsurprisingly, the right wing thinks that for-profit businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Or sex. Or race. Or religion.
The law does not apply to churches.
Unsurprisingly, the right wing thinks that for-profit businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Or sex. Or race. Or religion.
Any private business should be allowed to discriminate and they do; they won't sell you stuff unless you got $.
Thanks SLM; the little I did look earlier gave me the same story pretty much as posted. I find it telling that the articles I did see were mostly from conservative blogs who neglected to mention that these people run a business performing weddings. In that instance, if this is the case, then these people are in the wrong and it's against the law. I hope they are found guilty of not following that law and have to act accordingly.
Bear - a cult, to me, isn't exactly a real religious church or group that should be given protections. They may use religion as a way to form their group but usually the stuff going on is abuse on top of abuse, with religion as the excuse for the abuse. Just my opinion on it. As for people who get their 'minister' stuff online, I'm sort of iffy over the legitimacy of it compared to ministers who study and such. *shrug*
The whole point of the church is for it and its followers to practise their beliefs, and if it thinks the state is bringing in unpalatable and unpopular laws then the church is meant to speak out against it. If the church thinks, for example, that gay marriage is an unpopular law then the church is suppsoed to speak out against it and try and get the law changed. The church and the state are not always supposed to agree with each other. That's how it has been for nearly 2000 years. But there is a trend, nowadays, in the West for the state to punish the church if the church disagrees with new or old laws because they go against the teaching of the church. And that's wrong. The state should start doing what it used to do and listen to the church more, because the church is certainly more in touch with the vast majority of the people than out-of-touch politicians are. There's no point in having an established church if the state is just going to ignore the views and opinions of that church.
This isn't an established church. It's a for-profit wedding chapel.
The basic rule here in the U.S. is that a church may do pretty much as it pleases, but when the church enters the "stream of commerce," it is governed by the same laws that govern all for-profit businesses.
No one, not Coeur d'Alene, not the State of Idaho, not the United States, is saying that churches or clergy have to marry gays, or any other people the church objects to marrying. Churches may even refuse to perform interracial marriages, even though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago.
Try to focus, Blackleaf. This isn't about a church, and it isn't about belief. This is about a BUSINESS, a for-profit wedding chapel. Businesses in the U.S. are "places of public accommodation," and are forbidden to discriminate on any of a number of grounds (oddly, sexual orientation is not one of them on the Federal level). If you don't want to abide by the law, don't go into business. You are free to preach the hate of Jesus Christ any old way you like down to the meeting house.
Thank you for demonstrating that the right wing supports discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, and a number of other bases. No doubt just part of the warmth of Christ's hate.
There is a real simple solution to all this silliness. Marriage should be a religious institution only. Then any church can allow or disallow marriages for whatever reason their Gawd deems reasonable. Why is my relationship any business of the governments anyway?