The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

tommy2bad · 20-10-2014 06:15PM

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

A bit too Putinesque but still great food for thought.

screen-shot-2013-01-20-at-10-26-50-pm.png?w=300&h=194

JimiTime · 20-10-2014 07:00PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. This couple are running a for-profit wedding venue. Because that's a business, it's obliged to comply with local civil rights legislation forbidding businesses which offer services to the public from discriminating against customers or potential customers on various grounds, including sexual orientation.

If the good reverends were simply running a church, the law concerned would not apply to them - there's an explicit exemption. It's because they run a "place" which also hosts civil ceremonies that they come within the scope of the law.

Having said that, it's not clear that the application of the law to them will pass constitutional muster. Quite apart from the free exercise of religion clause there's the free speech clause - can the people concerned be compelled to speak words which they do not wish to speak? If the free speech clause means that state governments cannot compel school students to recite the pledge of allegiance if they do not wish to -and the Supreme Court has held that it does mean that - doesn't it also mean that they cannot compel wedding officiants to speak words that ceremonies which they object to and do not wish to officiate? Here's a peice in the Washington Post by an academic lawyer and blogger suggesting that they may have a good case. Time will tell.

They should be able to conduct their business as they always have done before some activists demanded changing the meaning of marriage. There'll be plenty of places who will conduct such ceremonies, including churches who have capitulated to the age and abandoned God's standards in the matter.
Also the Mayor in houston situation? Everyone seems to be ignoring that part.

Anyway, for those with foresight, they are coming for your freedom in the name of tolerance. Remember, you are already deemed as a hateful bigot if you hold to God as the authority on this matter, so it really is not far-fetched, as these events and events like these continue to exemplify. You makes yer bed I suppose. Christians need to continue to reach out to LGBT people, but resist the insidious activism.

MrPudding · 20-10-2014 07:29PM

JimiTime wrote: »

They should be able to conduct their business as they always have done before some activists demanded changing the meaning of marriage. There'll be plenty of places who will conduct such ceremonies, including churches who have capitulated to the age and abandoned God's standards in the matter.
Also the Mayor in houston situation? Everyone seems to be ignoring that part.

Anyway, for those with foresight, they are coming for your freedom in the name of tolerance. Remember, you are already deemed as a hateful bigot if you hold to God as the authority on this matter, so it really is not far-fetched, as these events and events like these continue to exemplify. You makes yer bed I suppose. Christians need to continue to reach out to LGBT people, but resist the insidious activism.

So is that a no to you answering any of the questions you were asked the last time you were posting here?

MrP

NuMarvel · 20-10-2014 07:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

They should be able to conduct their business as they always have done before some activists demanded changing the meaning of marriage. There'll be plenty of places who will conduct such ceremonies, including churches who have capitulated to the age and abandoned God's standards in the matter.

I bet we heard exactly the same thing when Loving v Virginia removed the bar on interracial marriages...

MrPudding · 20-10-2014 08:23PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I bet we heard exactly the same thing when Loving v Virginia removed the bar on interracial marriages...

Almost exactly.

MrP

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 04:55AM

Churches in the US are free to decline to celebrate interracial marriages if they wish, and I think there are still a few that do decline. But I doubt if a commercial wedding chapel, even if owned by a reverend, could get away with that.

JimiTime · 21-10-2014 08:20AM

Race is nothing to do with anything. Its incomparable, but I'm sure there's no convincing some people otherwise. Its the hijacking of the old civil rights movement in order to tap into its powerful imagery. I'll just ask, why is no-one dealing with the more shocking part of the story IE The Mayor of Houston?

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 08:31AM

I can't read your link to examiner.com, JimiTime; in fact it causes my browser to crash every time I click on it. I have read about the Wedding Chapel story in other news reports. If others are having the same problem, it might explain why you're getting no feedback on the Mayor of Houston story. Can you tell us what the story is, or link to another site which reports it?

NuMarvel · 21-10-2014 08:41AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is nothing to do with anything.

Tell that to the people who said it was against God's plan for the races to mix. This is what one judge said:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

If you want freedom of conscience on religious grounds then it must apply to everyone, not just the people you agree with. If you think it's acceptable for businesses to use their religious or personal beliefs to discriminate against customers, then you have to accept that can apply across the board, and not just to gay people. Which would make anti-discrimination laws redundant.

Delirium · 21-10-2014 08:51AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can't read your link to examiner.com, JimiTime; in fact it causes my browser to crash every time I click on it. I have read about the Wedding Chapel story in other news reports. If others are having the same problem, it might explain why you're getting no feedback on the Mayor of Houston story. Can you tell us what the story is, or link to another site which reports it?

Finally found it buried in the middle of the article.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a subpoena in which Houston Mayor Annise Parker demanded the sermons of five area pastors. Parker backed off the subpoenas somewhat after a national outcry, but still wants to know what the pastors are saying.

From a link in Jimis link,

It seems the openly gay mayor of Houston, Texas, has a problem with free speech and the First Amendment. A number of pastors in the city have been hit with subpoenas demanding they hand over any sermons that deal with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city's first lesbian mayor, Todd Starnes reported at Fox News Tuesday. Ministers who fail to comply with the order could find themselves held in contempt of court.

According to snopes, it was all centred around Houston Mayor Annise Parker signing the controversial Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) into law and how religious groups subsequently alledgedly used the pulpit to urge people to sign a petition to force a referendum to repeal the law.
further info:

Essentially, the city is arguing, if pastors, for example, encouraged their congregations to sign petitions or gather signatures, that type of speech is not protected.

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 09:24AM

Ah, OK. I had come across this in another context; I thought it rang a bell.

Somebody is adding two and two toegether to get about 25. Couple of points:

1. The pastors are not being sued.

2. The City of Houston is being sued by activists who are challenging a city ordinance which will require businesses serving the public to do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

3. The ordinance does not apply to churches or religious institutions.

4. Nobody is suggesting - and in particular the City of Houston is not suggesting - that the pastors are not entitle to preach anything they like, or that what they say is not constitutionally protected.

5. The activists who are suing the City organised a petition calling for a local referendum on the new law. Under Texas law, if they could get a certain number of signatures, they could require the City to hold a referendum. They say they got the required number of signatures, in accordance with the legal rules. (There are, apparently, fairly strict rules about how the signatures must be gathered.) The City says they did not, and has refused to hold the referendum. The legal proceedings are an attempt to compel the city to hold the referendum. The main issue in the legal proceedings will be whether the signatures were gathered in accordance with the rules.

6. The petition campaign was supported by the pastors concerned. Nobody - and in particular not the City - disputes their right to support it. The city's belief, however, is that the petition organisers gathered signatures in a way that did not comply with the legal requirements, and conseuquently that some of the signatures gathered are invalid. They hope to show that, in their preaching, supportive pastors urged people to sign the petition, or to gather signatures for the petition, in ways that did not comply with the rules about how such signatures are to be gathered. Hence the requirement to see copies of sermons preached.

7. The pastors are not defendants in the proceedings - indeed, they are not parties at all - and no order is sought against them, except the order to hand over copies of any sermons they preached dealing with the issue, so that the court can see what - if anything - was said to activists about how to gather signatures. There is no suggestion that they were not allowed to preach as they wished, or would not be in future, or that they would suffer any sanction for having preached on this topic. There is no attempt to restrict their freedom to speak and preach as they wish. There is no suggestion that the pastor's sermons are not constitutionally protected exercises of free speech and the free exercise of religion. The thing is, these constitutional protections have never given an immunity from subpoena. Courts can and regularly do subpoena people to give evidence about their perfectly lawful, fully constitutionally protected, activities.

8. Nor is there any invasion of privacy or confidentiality here, since sermons are by their very nature public addresses.

9. I myself the demand for the sermons is a bit of a stretch - the City is going on a fishing expedition hoping to find evidence that will support its case. In practice it's unlikely that sermons were the mechanism by which activists were organised to run a signature drive. It's been reported that the City has since withdrawn the subpoenas and I suspect that's probably because they were advise that, the pastors having appealed the subpoenas, they were likely to be struck down, not as unconstitutional but simply as too speculative.

10. But I think it acquires an over-developed sense of victimhood to turn this into an assault on free speech and the free exercise of religion. All that was ever happening here was that pastors were being required to tell the court how they had exercised their constitutional rights. This happens every day in US courts.

JimiTime · 21-10-2014 11:00AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, OK. I had come across this in another context; I thought it rang a bell.

Somebody is adding two and two toegether to get about 25. Couple of points:

1. The pastors are not being sued.

2. The City of Houston is being sued by activists who are challenging a city ordinance which will require businesses serving the public to do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

3. The ordinance does not apply to churches or religious institutions.

4. Nobody is suggesting - and in particular the City of Houston is not suggesting - that the pastors are not entitle to preach anything they like, or that what they say is not constitutionally protected.

5. The activists who are suing the City organised a petition calling for a local referendum on the new law. Under Texas law, if they could get a certain number of signatures, they could require the City to hold a referendum. They say they got the required number of signatures, in accordance with the legal rules. (There are, apparently, fairly strict rules about how the signatures must be gathered.) The City says they did not, and has refused to hold the referendum. The legal proceedings are an attempt to compel the city to hold the referendum. The main issue in the legal proceedings will be whether the signatures were gathered in accordance with the rules.

6. The petition campaign was supported by the pastors concerned. Nobody - and in particular not the City - disputes their right to support it. The city's belief, however, is that the petition organisers gathered signatures in a way that did not comply with the legal requirements, and conseuquently that some of the signatures gathered are invalid. They hope to show that, in their preaching, supportive pastors urged people to sign the petition, or to gather signatures for the petition, in ways that did not comply with the rules about how such signatures are to be gathered. Hence the requirement to see copies of sermons preached.

7. The pastors are not defendants in the proceedings - indeed, they are not parties at all - and no order is sought against them, except the order to hand over copies of any sermons they preached dealing with the issue, so that the court can see what - if anything - was said to activists about how to gather signatures. There is no suggestion that they were not allowed to preach as they wished, or would not be in future, or that they would suffer any sanction for having preached on this topic. There is no attempt to restrict their freedom to speak and preach as they wish. There is no suggestion that the pastor's sermons are not constitutionally protected exercises of free speech and the free exercise of religion. The thing is, these constitutional protections have never given an immunity from subpoena. Courts can and regularly do subpoena people to give evidence about their perfectly lawful, fully constitutionally protected, activities.

8. Nor is there any invasion of privacy or confidentiality here, since sermons are by their very nature public addresses.

9. I myself the demand for the sermons is a bit of a stretch - the City is going on a fishing expedition hoping to find evidence that will support its case. In practice it's unlikely that sermons were the mechanism by which activists were organised to run a signature drive. It's been reported that the City has since withdrawn the subpoenas and I suspect that's probably because they were advise that, the pastors having appealed the subpoenas, they were likely to be struck down, not as unconstitutional but simply as too speculative.

10. But I think it acquires an over-developed sense of victimhood to turn this into an assault on free speech and the free exercise of religion. All that was ever happening here was that pastors were being required to tell the court how they had exercised their constitutional rights. This happens every day in US courts.

This is NOT about playing the victim at all. This is about opening our eyes to the reality facing us. Pastors (who weren't involved in the legal case) were subpoenaed to hand over any sermons that dealt with homosexuality, transgenderism etc. It may surprise many, but secularism in the US was to keep the state out of the church, not the other way round. I think you are being very naive if you believe that war is/will not be declared on those who do not conform to the ideals of the sexual revolution. Wisdom would dictate that you need to look at all this through the broader lens of what is going on in terms of activism and all the hate labelling etc. This is not something in isolation, but the result of a much broader campaign. Again, I know you spun this as a victimhood complex, but this is a lot more serious than petty victimhood squabbles. There is a movement gaining traction that wants to silent dissention, and while Christians may seek to be 'relevant' (I empathise with such a thing, in that we want to remove any stumbling blocks for the gospel etc), all that will happen is that the people these compromisers are trying to help end up worse off due to a compromised gospel. Society will ultimately suffer here and worse still the Gospel will, and the harassment of people of faith is just beginning (Cake shops etc may seem insignificant, but again should not be looked at in isolation). Its now about having some foresight. I know its unpopular, and I know it brings scorn and labels we do not want, but when the world begins to hate God's truth, the answer is not to be relevant to the world, but to let the truth out, and like a lion it will defend itself (to paraphrase Augustine).

All in all, if all these events do not cause you concern and you feel they are acceptable and normal, jog on I suppose. For those that see the issue growing and growing, I say be vigilant, strong and unashamed for the sake not only of society but for those who accuse us of hate, for ultimately they will be the true victims of any silencing or compromise.

Berserker · 21-10-2014 02:19PM

Here is a link to the story in question taken from a conservative orientated media source in the USA.

I lived in Houston and have friends there. They say that the mayor, who is openly gay, has issued subpoenas demanding pastors (all) alter their public view of gay people and they must adhere to the city's ordinance on the matter.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. The church movement, particularly the mega-churches in that area, are extremely powerful, in a political sense. I have to be honest and say that I found the attitude and ignorance toward gay people shocking when I was there, among Christians I knew that is.

NuMarvel · 21-10-2014 02:27PM

JimiTime wrote: »

This is NOT about playing the victim at all. This is about opening our eyes to the reality facing us. Pastors (who weren't involved in the legal case) were subpoenaed to hand over any sermons that dealt with homosexuality, transgenderism etc. It may surprise many, but secularism in the US was to keep the state out of the church, not the other way round. I think you are being very naive if you believe that war is/will not be declared on those who do not conform to the ideals of the sexual revolution. Wisdom would dictate that you need to look at all this through the broader lens of what is going on in terms of activism and all the hate labelling etc. This is not something in isolation, but the result of a much broader campaign. Again, I know you spun this as a victimhood complex, but this is a lot more serious than petty victimhood squabbles. There is a movement gaining traction that wants to silent dissention, and while Christians may seek to be 'relevant' (I empathise with such a thing, in that we want to remove any stumbling blocks for the gospel etc), all that will happen is that the people these compromisers are trying to help end up worse off due to a compromised gospel. Society will ultimately suffer here and worse still the Gospel will, and the harassment of people of faith is just beginning (Cake shops etc may seem insignificant, but again should not be looked at in isolation). Its now about having some foresight. I know its unpopular, and I know it brings scorn and labels we do not want, but when the world begins to hate God's truth, the answer is not to be relevant to the world, but to let the truth out, and like a lion it will defend itself (to paraphrase Augustine).

All in all, if all these events do not cause you concern and you feel they are acceptable and normal, jog on I suppose. For those that see the issue growing and growing, I say be vigilant, strong and unashamed for the sake not only of society but for those who accuse us of hate, for ultimately they will be the true victims of any silencing or compromise.

People of faith aren't being harassed. Businesses are being told of the minimum standards they must comply with when dealing with the public. And amongst those minimum standards is the expectation that businesses will not discriminate against people on the basis of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I fail to see how a reasonable person could view the expectation that businesses treat everyone equally and fairly as a form of harassment. If a business person's first inclination is that such expectations are "harassment", then maybe they're not cut out to deal with the public in the first place.

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 02:38PM

Berserker wrote: »

Here is a link to the story in question taken from a conservative orientated media source in the USA.

I lived in Houston and have friends there. They say that the mayor, who is openly gay, has issued subpoenas demanding pastors (all) alter their public view of gay people and they must adhere to the city's ordinance on the matter. If the church is a commercial business (a la Lakewood church) then it make senses, in my opinion but a pastor running his own little non-profit church, shouldn't be bound by the ordinance, if he or she wishes to preach otherwise.

Your friends have, ahem, misunderstood the position. As your own link confirms, the subpoenas do not require the pastors to alter their public view of gay people, and they do not require the pastors to adher to the city's ordinance on the matter. The subpoenas - which have now been withdrawn - require the pastors to give the court copies of any sermons they preached on the subject while the referendum petition was under way, but they do not require the pastors to alter their views in any way. Nor to the subpoenas require the pastors to comply with the ordinance, which in fact has an explicit exemption for churches and religious institutions. How can you comply with an ordinance which itself says that it makes no demands upon you?

Somebody is lying to your friends, and they should probably be asking themselves why.

Berserker · 21-10-2014 02:46PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Somebody is lying to your friends, and they should probably be asking themselves why.

Sounds more realistic alright. As I said in my edited post, I was shocked by the attitude of the Christian movement there towards gay people. I would not be surprised if the subpoenas were taken as some big attack on the Christian community. If their local Pastor suggested that they were an attack, they would accept that without question and run with that line.

PopePalpatine · 21-10-2014 02:54PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

People of faith aren't being harassed. Businesses are being told of the minimum standards they must comply with when dealing with the public. And amongst those minimum standards is the expectation that businesses will not discriminate against people on the basis of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I fail to see how a reasonable person could view the expectation that businesses treat everyone equally and fairly as a form of harassment. If a business person's first inclination is that such expectations are "harassment", then maybe they're not cut out to deal with the public in the first place.

I found this on Reddit, it seems appropriate for this discussion:

I wonder, could this request for pastors to hand over their sermons be related to the fact that they could lose their tax-free status for interfering in politics?

MrPudding · 21-10-2014 03:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

This is NOT about playing the victim at all. This is about opening our eyes to the reality facing us. Pastors (who weren't involved in the legal case) were subpoenaed to hand over any sermons that dealt with homosexuality, transgenderism etc. It may surprise many, but secularism in the US was to keep the state out of the church, not the other way round. I think you are being very naive if you believe that war is/will not be declared on those who do not conform to the ideals of the sexual revolution. Wisdom would dictate that you need to look at all this through the broader lens of what is going on in terms of activism and all the hate labelling etc. This is not something in isolation, but the result of a much broader campaign. Again, I know you spun this as a victimhood complex, but this is a lot more serious than petty victimhood squabbles. There is a movement gaining traction that wants to silent dissention, and while Christians may seek to be 'relevant' (I empathise with such a thing, in that we want to remove any stumbling blocks for the gospel etc), all that will happen is that the people these compromisers are trying to help end up worse off due to a compromised gospel. Society will ultimately suffer here and worse still the Gospel will, and the harassment of people of faith is just beginning (Cake shops etc may seem insignificant, but again should not be looked at in isolation). Its now about having some foresight. I know its unpopular, and I know it brings scorn and labels we do not want, but when the world begins to hate God's truth, the answer is not to be relevant to the world, but to let the truth out, and like a lion it will defend itself (to paraphrase Augustine).

All in all, if all these events do not cause you concern and you feel they are acceptable and normal, jog on I suppose. For those that see the issue growing and growing, I say be vigilant, strong and unashamed for the sake not only of society but for those who accuse us of hate, for ultimately they will be the true victims of any silencing or compromise.

Interesting, whilst you have quoted Peregrinus' post, you don't appear to have bother reading it. It certainly has not taken you long to get back into you old ways.

Any chance of the answers to those questions you keep not answering?

MrP

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 03:19PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder, could this request for pastors to hand over their sermons be related to the fact that they could lose their tax-free status for interfering in politics?

You're not the first to speculate that that was part of the city's motive. But the city denies that it played any part in their thinking in issuing the subpoenas. And third party commentators suggest that this is probably true, if only because there never was any prospect of the churches losing their charitable status for "interfering in politics". Charities in the US are forbidden from advocating for a candidate in an election, but they are not forbidden from campaigning on political issues. There are many charities, indeed, whose main raison d'etre is campaigning on political issues, charities dedicated to working for marriage equality being an obvious example.

JimiTime · 21-10-2014 03:48PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your friends have, ahem, misunderstood the position. As your own link confirms, the subpoenas do not require the pastors to alter their public view of gay people, and they do not require the pastors to adher to the city's ordinance on the matter. The subpoenas - which have now been withdrawn - require the pastors to give the court copies of any sermons they preached on the subject while the referendum petition was under way, but they do not require the pastors to alter their views in any way. Nor to the subpoenas require the pastors to comply with the ordinance, which in fact has an explicit exemption for churches and religious institutions. How can you comply with an ordinance which itself says that it makes no demands upon you?

Somebody is lying to your friends, and they should probably be asking themselves why.

They are right to be concerned, and the subpoenas to hand over sermons mentioning LGBT things are most definitely a cause for worry. A pastor would be in contempt of court if he/she didn't submit. The point people are missing is the that there are strong indications that activists will push people of faith into the closet at any opportunity. Remember, people are 'hateful bigots' because they hold to Gods standards on sex and relationships and believe his ways are best. They may work with all their muster to help people of all sexual preferences race and creed be they homeless, addicts etc etc, but if they simply hold to Gods decree's on what is right and wrong, they are labelled hateful etc. In the Texas incident, we see an LGBT activist in power, using the courts to try get pastors submit their sermons, speeches etc due to the fact that 40 - 50 thousand people signed a petition (18,000 were required) to hold a referendum on a newly passed law that see's men being allowed use ladies public bathrooms etc. They obviously don't like the thought that Pastors may have spoken about this to their congregations, and though the pastors were not involved in the case, they were targeted. The fact that the subpoenas were withdrawn after an outcry should tell us something. The fact is, the Mayor's heart is exposed in the matter, but she had to capitulate due to pressure. Just imagine if priests were not allowed preach on abortion due to it being 'political' etc.
Like I said earlier, these things should not be looked at in isolation. Its on the back of this activism that an attempt will be and is already being made to drive faith to silence. Its Orwell realised. Dissenters will be labelled, and when society allows, well, we'll see. Again, Christians must not see LGBT folks as the enemy, but continue to reach out with the truth and love of the Gospel distinguishing between the people and the activism. However, we must not be naive or lack foresight in relation to the activism going on. While exaggeration is unwelcome, so is belittlement.

"Pastors have the right to preach their convictions without second thought about city attorneys intruding upon their thought-processes or religious convictions. The very request by the city attorneys is reckless!"
Benjamin L. Hall, former city attorney of Houston, TX:

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 03:55PM

Seeking to have the pastor's sermons given wider publicity by being cited in court proceedings is pretty much the opposite of trying to drive them into the closet, JimiTime. I honestly fail to see how somebody who issues a subpoena to gather evidence for use in court proceedings is trying to suppress that evidence. On the contrary, they are trying to draw attention to it.

Subpoenaing documents for use as evidence in court procedures is a routine process - it happens literally every day. It carries no implication at all that there is anything improper or objectionable in the documents.

JimiTime · 21-10-2014 04:38PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seeking to have the pastor's sermons given wider publicity by being cited in court proceedings is pretty much the opposite of trying to drive them into the closet, JimiTime. I honestly fail to see how somebody who issues a subpoena to gather evidence for use in court proceedings is trying to suppress that evidence. On the contrary, they are trying to draw attention to it.

Subpoenaing documents for use as evidence in court procedures is a routine process - it happens literally every day. It carries no implication at all that there is anything improper or objectionable in the documents.

Are you kidding me?? I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or not.

NuMarvel · 21-10-2014 06:20PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Churches in the US are free to decline to celebrate interracial marriages if they wish, and I think there are still a few that do decline. But I doubt if a commercial wedding chapel, even if owned by a reverend, could get away with that.

Would commercial chapels opposed to interracial marriages not be able to claim protection under the freedom of speech and expression of religion clauses that you mentioned earlier? The principles are similar to those in same sex marriage, i.e. the celebrant has a religious objection to performing the marriage of a certain class of people. If it's found the pastors in Iadho can legally refuse to carry out commercial activities for gay couples, can other pastors similarly refuse other types of couples?

Peregrinus · 22-10-2014 12:52AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Would commercial chapels opposed to interracial marriages not be able to claim protection under the freedom of speech and expression of religion clauses that you mentioned earlier? The principles are similar to those in same sex marriage, i.e. the celebrant has a religious objection to performing the marriage of a certain class of people. If it's found the pastors in Iadho can legally refuse to carry out commercial activities for gay couples, can other pastors similarly refuse other types of couples?

As I understand it, a pastor could refuse to celebrate a gay wedding either at his own church or in a commercial wedding chapel. Officiating the wedding is, for him, the exercise of religion, the freedom of which is constitutionally protected.

But a commercial wedding chapel can't refuse to host gay weddings, just as bakers can't refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. Running a wedding chapel is not the exercise of religion, and it doesn't become so merely because you are an ordained minister. In this instance the couple concerned could refuse to offciate gay weddings at their chapel, but they couldn't refuse to host a gay wedding with an officiant supplied by the couple if they are willing to host straight weddings with an officiant supplied by the couple.

In short, offciating as a minister at a wedding = exercise of religion; operating a church = exercise of religion; running a venue which hosts both religious and non-religious weddings - not the exercise of religion. And I think the situation is probably the same if we analyse this as free speech rather than free exercise; actually officiating at a wedding involves speech, and you can't be compelled to speech. But running a venue that hosts weddings is not a form of speech, at least for constitutional purposes, any more than icing a wedding cake is.

Note that these non-discrimination ordinances typically bar discrimination not just on the grounds of sexual orientation but on a variety of other grounds - gender, religion, marital status, etc. But it's an absolute no-brainer that, e.g. a rabbi can decline to celebrate the wedding of two non-Jews, which is discrimination on the grounds of religion; a Catholic priest can decline to celebrate the wedding of a divorced person, which is discrimination on the grounds of marital status, etc. So the notion that actually celebrating a marriage in your capacity as a minister is an exercise of religion which enjoys constitutional protection is well established. But running a wedding venue is no different from being a wedding photographer or baking wedding cakes.

Peregrinus · 22-10-2014 12:54AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you kidding me?? I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or not.

No, I'm not being obtuse at all. People are claiming that a subpoena to produce copies of sermons for use as evidence in a court case against the City of Houston is (a) an attempt to silence the authors of the sermons, (b) an attempt to force the authors of the sermons to change their views, or (c) an attempt to penalise the authors of the sermons. In fact a subpoena does none of these things. If anything, it's the people who say that the subpoena will have these effects but conspicuously fail to explain how it will have these effects who are being obtuse.

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 10:51PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Simple, mutual self-interest. I desire to live in a peaceful society, able to pursue my dreams. Most other people desire the same thing.

That's utility, not morality. You have no basis for morally objecting to someone who has no problem in kicking ass of anyone who stands in the way of them having society the way they desire it

Take homosexuals wanting to marry, to be formally recognised by the state for being a couple just like a heterosexual couple would, to be allowed to have all the same rights (and responsibilities). When I look into that, all I'm seeing from your side of the camp is "God says no". Not good enough. When I examine the issue, I see no harm whatsoever can come from allowing homosexuals to marry. If you're going to try and convince me...
wait...

My objection to gay marriage (and LBGT agenda) would stem

a) from how I consider God to have set up the running of society for it's own long term good and a unquestioned* nod I would give to sustaining that as opposed to alternatives, however well intentioned and 'fair' sounding

b) having no faith at all in man's ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. In a relatively short period of time society has been moved/forced towards considering sexuality as one would a product on a supermarket shelf - any number of options or sub-options to be chosed from with the option of changing your mind at any time and switching brands.

A receipe for disaster fiddling with the building blocks of identity like that.

But I wouldn't at all be fatalistic about it. That society lunges from collision to collision in the course of it's rebellion can be no great surprise nor can it be avoided in the main.

Right, you and I are done. I desire debates with people who are genuinely interested in trying to sway me to their side. Not people who have no interest in doing so, but merely want to say what it is they believe.

I didn't think you'd like wriggling out of the problem of God's sovereignty. If he exists..

PopePalpatine · 04-01-2015 12:03AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

In a relatively short period of time society has been moved/forced towards considering sexuality as one would a product on a supermarket shelf - any number of options or sub-options to be chosed from with the option of changing your mind at any time and switching brands.

Why would anyone choose to be LGBT when they have to face up to bigotry day in, day out?

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 12:13AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why would anyone choose to be LGBT when they have to face up to bigotry day in, day out?

I'm making an observation on the way in which societies view has been shifted. And is being shifted. Whether or not that produces difficulty for someone or not needn't be relevant to those doing the shifting.

I wasn't aware that being considered a societal outcast was a particular impediment to at least one target age group of this particular movement. It could very well prove an attraction. Sexuality development is the perogative of the very young - a group demonstrably malleable in the hands of vested interests. Rendering sexuality ambiguous/a matter of choice is the same as muddying the waters. Muddying the waters is a great way to instill confusion. Confusion is a great way to bring about wrong choices. Very destructive wrong choices in the case of something so central to identity as sexuality

-

I would ask why anyone would take up cigarette smoking when it leads to a (known before the event) lifetime of slavery in terms of health, finance and societal approbation? Yet the young do in droves. To answer your chief question?

The ignorance of youth in the hands of vested interests

PopePalpatine · 04-01-2015 01:20AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The ignorance of youth in the hands of vested interests

That line is all too ironic considering our country's history.

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 05:22AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That line is all too ironic considering our country's history.

I'll assume this Saturday night drive by and await substance to come..

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments