City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
By Todd Starnes
• Published October 20, 2014 • FoxNews.comFacebook0 Twitter0 livefyre475 Email Print Now Playing
Ministers told to perform same-sex weddings

Never autoplay videos Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”
- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”

Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to 180 days in jail.

Now all of that was a moot point because, until last week, gay marriage was not legal in Idaho.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex marriages to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. Two days later, the folks at the Hitching Post received a telephone call.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined, putting it in violation of the law.

City officials did not respond to my requests for an interview, nor did they respond to requests from local news outlets.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Tedesco said.

“The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended.”

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance.

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail,” Tedesco told me.

It’s hard to believe this could happen in the United States. But as the lawsuit states, the Knapps are in a “constant state of fear that they may have to go to jail, pay substantial fines, or both, resulting in them losing the business that God has called them to operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.”

The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me it’s “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans,” Perkins said.

Why should evangelical Christian ministers be forced to perform and celebrate any marriage that conflicts with their beliefs?

“This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions – where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs,” Perkins told me.

As I write in my new book, “God Less America,” we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack.

The incidents in Houston and now in Coeur d’Alene are the just the latest examples of a disturbing trend in the culture war – direct attacks on clergy.

“Government officials are making clear they will use their government power to punish those who oppose the advances of homosexual activists,” Perkins said.

I’m afraid Mr. Perkins is absolutely right.

No one should be discriminated against but have you noticed that any time a city passes a “nondiscrimination” ordinance, it’s the Christians who wind up being discriminated against?


Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America."

 Frazzled wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

.................................................

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

I'm actually onside of the city for the reasons cited.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,”

but the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, that whole "tax registration" thing is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I feel a privately owned business vs. a publicly owned business is what should be more of a determination than for profit or not for profit.

If you're a publicly held (e.g. shares) company, I think that should be more of an "you have to service everybody, because you can be owned by anybody" .

 KingCracker wrote:
How is this any different than having the right to refuse business to another person? I'm sorry but this is stupid, threatening lawsuit because an ordained minister doesn't want to marry a gay couple is just ridiculous.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The question still remains: why would a gay couple go to a conservative christian business and demand to be married?

Should a gay person go to ChristianMingle.com to try and find a gay partner to hook up with?

Should a straight man go to gaydar.com and demand to be matched with a heterosexual female?

Those businesses are specifically geared toward a certain type of population: Christian singles and Gay singles.

Using your argument:
--- a straight man/woman should be able to file a lawsuit against Gaydar or PinkCupid because they don't offer them the chance to find some heterosexual company.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I'm a bit on the fence...but I'm leaning toward backing the business.

First, I feel that there is a bit of under-handed deception here.

Other than sensationalism, why would a gay couple want to go to a publicized "one woman, one man" Christian-specific wedding chapel?

They could get married anywhere else. Outside. In a hotel. In a shack. They could get married anywhere else, but they purposely chose a very conservative place for a specific purpose.

I back marriage equality....but I also back business' rights to refuse service to anybody--with no explanation necessary.

Here's my thoughts....

This is a perfect opportunity for Gay-oriented wedding chapels to rise up, to be established, and to fill the "gap" that conservative wedding chapels leave by not wanting to perform gay ceremonies.

That's why I'm leaning with the business....in this instance.

I do also back this statement:

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,”

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

It isn't the act of refusal that is the problem, it is the reasoning behind the refusal that is the issue.

Zebio wrote:
Do any of those works offer a legal, public service like marriage?

cincy wrote:I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The question still remains: why would a gay couple go to a conservative christian business and demand to be married?

Should a gay person go to ChristianMingle.com to try and find a gay partner to hook up with?

Should a straight man go to gaydar.com and demand to be matched with a heterosexual female?

Those businesses are specifically geared toward a certain type of population: Christian singles and Gay singles.

Using your argument:
--- a straight man/woman should be able to file a lawsuit against Gaydar or PinkCupid because they don't offer them the chance to find some heterosexual company.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

but the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship

That's the most important piece of information.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry whether or not the owner of the store will discriminate against us just by walking through the door.

It's pretty sickening that in 2014 I have to raise my kids in country that has it's head still stuck up its 1950s ass.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

PhantomViper wrote:
They are a business and as such should be regulated by the same laws as every other business.

I also find it hilarious that a "Conservative Christian" "church" makes a profit out of selling one of the sacred sacraments... I could have sworn that I read something in the bible about Jesus opening a can of whoopass on people just like that.

Selling the blessing of God for profit = good conservative Christians, apparently.

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Considering that the US was founded on religious freedom

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry whether or not the owner of the store will discriminate against us just by walking through the door.

It's pretty sickening that in 2014 I have to raise my kids in country that has it's head still stuck up its 1950s ass.

If that were the case, if you walked into the wrong store, later that night you would be hanged and your house burned down.

Kids these days, full of hyperbole without having actually lived it.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
They are a business and as such should be regulated by the same laws as every other business.

I also find it hilarious that a "Conservative Christian" "church" makes a profit out of selling one of the sacred sacraments... I could have sworn that I read something in the bible about Jesus opening a can of whoopass on people just like that.

Selling the blessing of God for profit = good conservative Christians, apparently.

Where are they "sellling the blessings of God?"

They aren't, at all.

 Talizvar wrote:

I was just thinking back of all the hoops we had to jump through for getting our kids baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.

Marriage is one thing, being threatened with eternal damnation to your children is another...

 KingCracker wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

This in a nutshell. Yes.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

And this is where I'll mostly agree and say that they should all be two person civil unions and that any "marriage ceremony" should have nothing to do with the government.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

Because, as Whembly is so fond of saying, "You didn't build that".

Businesses in this country benefit enormously from the fruits of society. They enjoy a stable government, and a stable supply chain that brings. UPS brings their goods from wherever. The police protect the property and deter theft and vandalism, unless you're in Detroit. You have plumbing, and clean water, also not wholly applicable in Detroit. The fire department protects the property from fire, obviously. When they need to hire employees, the pool of employees to pick from will be relatively well educated and stable.

Those are the perks of a organized society that we all build together. But they come with some responsibilities, too. You have to pay your taxes, obviously, that's one. The other is there are a whole host of regulations that you have to abide by, that we, as a complete society, decided we wanted and had codified into law via our elected representatives. You have to provide a safe workplace. You have to pay into worker's comp, in case someone gets injured. You have to post advertisements that are honest and goods that are accurately labelled. And yes, you are not allowed to discriminate against some members of the public, because those members of the public are also tax-paying members of the same society that gave you the benefits you enjoy.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand as a grown adult.

 d-usa wrote:

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

Because, as Whembly is so fond of saying, "You didn't build that".

Businesses in this country benefit enormously from the fruits of society. They enjoy a stable government, and a stable supply chain that brings. UPS brings their goods from wherever. The police protect the property and deter theft and vandalism, unless you're in Detroit. You have plumbing, and clean water, also not wholly applicable in Detroit. The fire department protects the property from fire, obviously. When they need to hire employees, the pool of employees to pick from will be relatively well educated and stable.

Those are the perks of a organized society that we all build together. But they come with some responsibilities, too. You have to pay your taxes, obviously, that's one. The other is there are a whole host of regulations that you have to abide by, that we, as a complete society, decided we wanted and had codified into law via our elected representatives. You have to provide a safe workplace. You have to pay into worker's comp, in case someone gets injured. You have to post advertisements that are honest and goods that are accurately labelled. And yes, you are not allowed to discriminate against some members of the public, because those members of the public are also tax-paying members of the same society that gave you the benefits you enjoy.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand as a grown adult.

 TheMeanDM wrote:


Hmm...sounds a bit like "Separate but Equal"....doesn't it? However, I would hope, that in this instance, there would actually be equality.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

 d-usa wrote:

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

It's not bigoted if you read what I actually post and think about it for longer than it takes to move the mouse over to the triangle of friendship.

I'm talking about viewing it from the eyes of the state. Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state the state shouldn't care at all what kind of ceremony you are doing. The only thing that should matter to the state is that a state sanctioned officiant performs a wedding between two people that can legally marry. That's it. Everything else is private and meaningless. If a person doesn't want to do that they can do private meaningless ceremonies. If a religious person wants to officiate they can do private meaningless religious ceremonies.

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

But please, continue the outrage.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

I should go all dogma here and say, "well you should have expressly said that in your initial post."

I'm not outraged. I just think private businesses should be allowed to do what they want.

I don't believe every private business should be considered a "public accommodation"

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

 Bullockist wrote:
I've just realised I'm a wedding cake bigot.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I'm of the belief that in 2014, in the United States, most of these businesses will go out of business or have their business severely impacted because of their asshattery.

 d-usa wrote:
I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

 d-usa wrote:


State licensing would be a good test to see if it falls under "public accommodation" IMO.

 Bullockist wrote:
I am really worried that the guys/gals getting married may have no way to buy a wedding cake with the nazi bakers in the US and all.
Everyone should be able to buy gak cake with gak icing once in their life....or in the modern world...2 or 3 times.
or if frazzled or cincy never, because their wedding cakes were good

 Ouze wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with my "invisible hand" comment: I'm not an economist but it seems to me once a company reaches a certain critical mass they essentially become immune from consequences.

 Ouze wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with my "invisible hand" comment: I'm not an economist but it seems to me once a company reaches a certain critical mass they essentially become immune from consequences.

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

"But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship"

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm letting the side down here, I had one drink at my wedding

 d-usa wrote:
So they can have wedding parties all they want and discriminate, by they shouldn't be able to actually perform an official wedding unless they are willing to do it for everybody.

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

Or is the "want to be licensed by the state, follow state rules and don't discriminate" argument more complicated than I thought?

 d-usa wrote:
Did Facebook become a state-licensed social media exchange service without anyone noticing?

 Bullockist wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

Best wedding I ever saw was a family of 6'4" westerners marrying into a 5' Korean family and there being a macho shot taking competition between the two families at the bar...you know how it turned out.

That said what's nijikai?

also soju is nice.

 Ouze wrote:
Tomorrow at work, I will regret this thread and my participation in it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they can have wedding parties all they want and discriminate, by they shouldn't be able to actually perform an official wedding unless they are willing to do it for everybody.

I think that the for profit element might be the determining factor

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

Or is the "want to be licensed by the state, follow state rules and don't discriminate" argument more complicated than I thought?

How about the "both are private for profit businesses" argument? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I'm all for that idea as well.

You go to the Priest/Shaman/Vicar/Rabbi.....and do your religious MARRIAGE ceremony.

Then, you go before a judge or Justice of the Peace (or some other person with the legal authority) and get your government sanctioned CIVIL UNION.

Religions won't have to marry non religious people or feel that they are condoning a lifestyle that they don't agree with.....but a civil union allows everyone to be treated the same under the eyes of the law.

Hmm...sounds a bit like "Separate but Equal"....doesn't it? However, I would hope, that in this instance, there would actually be equality.

axisofentropy wrote:
No, businesses cannot refuse service to everybody, and for very good reasons.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

-- http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

plain english here https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[

IMO, it should be the other way round.... Go to the judge/courthouse FIRST, to be recognized by the State, and get your tax benefits, THEN be married under the eyes of whatever deity(ies) the people prefer.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Tomorrow at work, I will regret this thread and my participation in it.

No need to wait for tomorrow when today is ready for you!

 agnosto wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

Best wedding I ever saw was a family of 6'4" westerners marrying into a 5' Korean family and there being a macho shot taking competition between the two families at the bar...you know how it turned out.

That said what's nijikai?

also soju is nice.

nijikai is the second party. So, in Japan they have the wedding, the reception is like $200per plate and limited to family/best friends so there's a party for all the friends who couldn't make the reception, usually at a restaurant or izakaya (pub). We actually had another party after the nijikai for the hardcore hangers-on. The wedding was completely Japanese but the parties afterward incorporated quite a few American traditions (bouquet and garter throwing, groom cake, etc).

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[

IMO, it should be the other way round.... Go to the judge/courthouse FIRST, to be recognized by the State, and get your tax benefits, THEN be married under the eyes of whatever deity(ies) the people prefer.

You can have a religious marriage and ceremony and not have a legally binding one.

Just like you can have a legally binding marriage without a religious marriage and ceremony.

 TheMeanDM wrote:


What is the definition of "place of public accommodation"?

A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Agreed. But in the case of the former, they should not, under any circumstances be able to file taxes as married, unless they have done so under the eyes of the law. And obviously the way to be married under the eyes of the law, is through state marriage license/marriage certificate.

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:


What is the definition of "place of public accommodation"?

A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Personally, I think it's far too ambiguous.

 d-usa wrote:
It's a non factor, since the actual service is still depending on state licensing. It doesn't matter if you officiate in a for-profit setting, a non-profit church, or officiating to marry hobos on the street. Officiating over marriages is a state function and since the state can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples then as an agent of the state you should not be able to discriminate either, regardless of whatever arena you chose to officiate in.

 d-usa wrote:
Hence my argument that there should be no more automatic "oh, you're clergy, here is your state authorization to marry people" and a move towards "are you willing to follow the law, here is your license to officiate" system.

 d-usa wrote:
If we want to pretend it's a valid argument then it's a good thing that you quoted my Facebook opinion: a private business can make rules as long as the same rules apply to anyone. If the rules single out certain groups then it's a rule that should not be legal.
Or we can admit that the "private business" doesn't matter because if you have to be licensed by the state to marry people then you should have to marry everybody that can get married.

I'll admit that it's an evolution of my previous stance regarding religious institutions, but people do mature and change their views based on thinking about stuff>

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

Prestor Jon wrote:

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression.

A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state.

It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

 cincydooley wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

He's not saying that, I don't think.

Fairly certain he's saying that Rabbis, priests, ministers, any schmuck off the internet, etc. shouldn't be performing legally binding marriages.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

We don't have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that happens to be a clergy member of an religious institution automatically becomes an officiant.

You can't claim that there is a separation of church and state when you automatically become a state actor simply by virtue of your position in your religion.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression.

Except that is not my position.

If a pastor/reverend/rabbi etc wants the ability to officiate STATE SANCTIONED weddings, then they have to marry anyone. They can have the right to use their religion as a justification to refuse to participate in a private ceremony, but they should not be able to use it as a reason to refuse to exercise their role as a state licensed officiant.

A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state.

A Catholic priest refusing to to exercise his job as a state-sanctioned officiant and to refuse to participate in a state-sanctioned event to marry two people that are legally allowed by state law to enter into a state-sanctioned covenant to receive state-granted benefits because his religion doesn't like it seems to be violating the separation of church and state.

It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

if the Catholic priest doesn't want to act in opposition to Catholicism then he can always give up his ability to officiate state sanctioned marriages.

He can be a priest.
He can be a state-licensed officiant.
He can be both if he wants to.
But he shouldn't be able to be a state-licensed officiant if he is not willing to carry out his role as a state-actor within the full scope of the law. If his religion doesn't allow him to marry everybody, then he shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

You're actually arguing for civil unions. I thought you didn't like civil unions.
Weddings don't have to be government sanctioned. Indeed, you don't even need a ceremony to call yourself married, just hold yourself out as married.
if you want government contractual benefits you just sign the marriage certificate. BAM!

 d-usa wrote:


I don't have a problem with the concept of civil unions, in my mind all official marriages are just state-sanctioned contracts with certain legal benefits anyway. I just have a problem with calling them "civil unions" after all these years.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You're actually arguing for civil unions. I thought you didn't like civil unions.
Weddings don't have to be government sanctioned. Indeed, you don't even need a ceremony to call yourself married, just hold yourself out as married.
if you want government contractual benefits you just sign the marriage certificate. BAM!

See my last post on that evolution.

I don't have a problem with the concept of civil unions, in my mind all official marriages are just state-sanctioned contracts with certain legal benefits anyway. I just have a problem with calling them "civil unions" after all these years.

Marriage is still the exact same thing it has always been: two people sign the marriage certificate, they get the same benefits they have always gotten, nothing has changed except for "who" can get married. So why change the name now except to appease people who don't want to share and who think that their religious definition trumps the legal function of "marriage" that has existed for a long time before now?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

As the OP did you just call me guilty of a thought crime?
Pfft, shows you. You have to be able to think to be guilty of a thought crime..oh wait!

More freedom is always better than less freedom. We're all equal and we should all be able to enjoy the freedom to be equally smart or stupid or ignorant or enlightened. A bigotted business owner is still just a person, same as me. I can easily explain to my children the problems with bigotry and point out nonbigotted businesses. It's not difficult to teach morality in a free society. Bigotry in business in a free market is never going to really prosper because by the nature of their bigotry they are only catering to a subset of the population rather than the whole. The level of bigotry being discussed in this thread is an inconvenience. If a subset of people have to go to a different store or restaurant because the one they wanted to patronize is owned by somebody that doesn't want their business it's not going to some kind of cataclysmic event that pushes society into chaos and anarchy with blood running in the streets. It's never been easier for people to publicize that kind of bigotry through social media and any business that turns away customers for silly reasons like that won't last long.

It's also 2014, there really aren't a whole lot of people out there who are running businesses that would put a "____ People Only" sign in their window if it weren't for those pesky anti discrimination laws. Seriously, does anyone actually know of a business that would start descriminating tomorrow if they had the freedom to do so? If there is a business owner out there that is that much of a bigot I wanted him/her to be overt about it so I can choose not to patronize their business rather than them keeping it hidden and taking my money. Back in the 1850s there was a large amount of anti Irish discrimination in Boston, NYC and other east coast cities following the large influx of immigrants due to the potato famine. To this day being Irish or of Irish descent doesn't make you part of a protected class yet there are no more Irish Need Not Apply or No Irish Allowed signs up in businesses. People got over their fears and stopped discriminating without having laws passed making it illegal.

The bigotry brought up by the OP and being discussed in the thread is a thought crime. Criminalizing thoughts is anathema to a free society and immoral. People should be free to think whatever thoughts they want and hold whatever opinions they want. I don't want the govt punishing people because they believe the "wrong" things. It's easy to say it's ok for the govt to punish bigots because bigotry is bad but that doesn't mean that bigots shouldn't have the same rights as non bigots. Society should only be concerned with criminalizing actions not thoughts. Actions affect others, thoughts are private. If you choose to commit assault, murder, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, etc. that's a crime regardless of the motivation so there is no need to criminalize the thoughts.

 d-usa wrote:
Only letting people officiate who are willing to follow the law isn't punishing anyone.

 d-usa wrote:
Only letting people officiate who are willing to follow the law isn't punishing anyone.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

More freedom is always better than less freedom. We're all equal and we should all be able to enjoy the freedom to be equally smart or stupid or ignorant or enlightened. A bigotted business owner is still just a person, same as me. I can easily explain to my children the problems with bigotry and point out nonbigotted businesses. It's not difficult to teach morality in a free society. Bigotry in business in a free market is never going to really prosper because by the nature of their bigotry they are only catering to a subset of the population rather than the whole. The level of bigotry being discussed in this thread is an inconvenience. If a subset of people have to go to a different store or restaurant because the one they wanted to patronize is owned by somebody that doesn't want their business it's not going to some kind of cataclysmic event that pushes society into chaos and anarchy with blood running in the streets. It's never been easier for people to publicize that kind of bigotry through social media and any business that turns away customers for silly reasons like that won't last long.

It's also 2014, there really aren't a whole lot of people out there who are running businesses that would put a "____ People Only" sign in their window if it weren't for those pesky anti discrimination laws. Seriously, does anyone actually know of a business that would start descriminating tomorrow if they had the freedom to do so? If there is a business owner out there that is that much of a bigot I wanted him/her to be overt about it so I can choose not to patronize their business rather than them keeping it hidden and taking my money. Back in the 1850s there was a large amount of anti Irish discrimination in Boston, NYC and other east coast cities following the large influx of immigrants due to the potato famine. To this day being Irish or of Irish descent doesn't make you part of a protected class yet there are no more Irish Need Not Apply or No Irish Allowed signs up in businesses. People got over their fears and stopped discriminating without having laws passed making it illegal.

The bigotry brought up by the OP and being discussed in the thread is a thought crime. Criminalizing thoughts is anathema to a free society and immoral. People should be free to think whatever thoughts they want and hold whatever opinions they want. I don't want the govt punishing people because they believe the "wrong" things. It's easy to say it's ok for the govt to punish bigots because bigotry is bad but that doesn't mean that bigots shouldn't have the same rights as non bigots. Society should only be concerned with criminalizing actions not thoughts. Actions affect others, thoughts are private. If you choose to commit assault, murder, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, etc. that's a crime regardless of the motivation so there is no need to criminalize the thoughts.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I'm a bit on the fence...but I'm leaning toward backing the business.

First, I feel that there is a bit of under-handed deception here.

Other than sensationalism, why would a gay couple want to go to a publicized "one woman, one man" Christian-specific wedding chapel?

They could get married anywhere else. Outside. In a hotel. In a shack. They could get married anywhere else, but they purposely chose a very conservative place for a specific purpose.

I back marriage equality....but I also back business' rights to refuse service to anybody--with no explanation necessary.

...

 Ouze wrote:
At this point I feel obligated to point out the poor reporting.

Headline: "City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings"

Article: "He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.” "

So... who was "threatened with arrest and jail"? Apparently, no one.

 StarTrotter wrote:


As per the argument, I'll agree with d-usa upon the fact that I like the whole "civil union" thing EXCEPT for one part. It seems very much like fine if we can't have it nobody can have it! *tosses something away so they can't have it*

That and it seems unnecessarily complex to then dig through every single law in existence around marriage to change it to civil union. But hey, who knows maybe they'll see some of the strange laws still in there and get a laugh

 agnosto wrote:


Yeah, but it's Fox "News" so hyperbolic extrapolation is kind of a given.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

He's not saying that, I don't think.

Fairly certain he's saying that Rabbis, priests, ministers, any schmuck off the internet, etc. shouldn't be performing legally binding marriages.

Pretty much this, or that they shouldn't be able to automatically be able to perform legally binding marriages simply by virtue of their religious status. .

It seems like I'm evolving into a form of the "make everything a civil union" argument, except for the whole "civil union" thing. I still think that getting rid of marriage seems like a kid taking his ball away because he would rather throw it across the fence than share it.

Make "marriage" and "weddings" a full blown state thing. Get a license by the state, get legally married, get the legal benefits. Everybody that wants to officiate over legally binding weddings cannot discriminate against any couples that are legally able to get married. If you want a religious ceremony then you can have your religious clergy perform one of those as well but it wouldn't affect the legal status of your marriage at all. Those private ceremonies can follow whatever rules their religion requires them to follow, at this point it's just a religious ceremony and not a legal state ceremony.

Clergy who are fine with marrying anyone can combine their two functions of "state-officiant" and "religious clergy" and have a ceremony that is both religious and legally binding.

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh bull That depends on the law and who determine's who's making it doesn't it.
You're directly contravening the First Amendment, to the extent it will: 1) be poured out of court; 2) you might start a real civil war.
Government can say: you want these benefits, you have to do X. But government can't say you can't call yourselves married. I mean I know California has a sudden desire to regulate the bedroom, but that crap won't fly.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Merely becoming an ordained priest doesn't make you lawfully able to sign off on a marriage license. I got ordained by multiple religions through a few minutes on the internet to prove a point to a friend. I'm officially ordained but I can't legally marry somebody unless I pay a fee and get registered by the state. I think history is pretty clear that the state chose to empower ordained ministers to legally marry people in order to make their religious ceremonies legally binding not in order to gain leverage to force religious leaders to act against their religion. If the state didn't want religious institution to perform lawful marriages the state wouldn't have empowered them to do so.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

He's not saying that, I don't think.

Fairly certain he's saying that Rabbis, priests, ministers, any schmuck off the internet, etc. shouldn't be performing legally binding marriages.

Pretty much this, or that they shouldn't be able to automatically be able to perform legally binding marriages simply by virtue of their religious status. .

It seems like I'm evolving into a form of the "make everything a civil union" argument, except for the whole "civil union" thing. I still think that getting rid of marriage seems like a kid taking his ball away because he would rather throw it across the fence than share it.

Make "marriage" and "weddings" a full blown state thing. Get a license by the state, get legally married, get the legal benefits. Everybody that wants to officiate over legally binding weddings cannot discriminate against any couples that are legally able to get married. If you want a religious ceremony then you can have your religious clergy perform one of those as well but it wouldn't affect the legal status of your marriage at all. Those private ceremonies can follow whatever rules their religion requires them to follow, at this point it's just a religious ceremony and not a legal state ceremony.

Clergy who are fine with marrying anyone can combine their two functions of "state-officiant" and "religious clergy" and have a ceremony that is both religious and legally binding.

Merely becoming an ordained priest doesn't make you lawfully able to sign off on a marriage license. I got ordained by multiple religions through a few minutes on the internet to prove a point to a friend. I'm officially ordained but I can't legally marry somebody unless I pay a fee and get registered by the state. I think history is pretty clear that the state chose to empower ordained ministers to legally marry people in order to make their religious ceremonies legally binding not in order to gain leverage to force religious leaders to act against their religion. If the state didn't want religious institution to perform lawful marriages the state wouldn't have empowered them to do so.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh bull That depends on the law and who determine's who's making it doesn't it.
You're directly contravening the First Amendment, to the extent it will: 1) be poured out of court; 2) you might start a real civil war.
Government can say: you want these benefits, you have to do X. But government can't say you can't call yourselves married. I mean I know California has a sudden desire to regulate the bedroom, but that crap won't fly.

What the feth happened to you there.

I never said anything about not being able to call yourself married. I never said anything about not being able to have whatever marriage ceremony or wedding ceremony or "Uniting of the Schlongs" ceremony or "happy clambake" ceremony. Call it whatever the hell you want.

I said two things:

1) That I think it's stupid to no longer call the official government sanctioned version marriage and to switch it to civil unions.
2) That to officiate over an official government sanctioned and recognized wedding you have to be willing to officiate over the official government sanctioned and recognized wedding of everybody without discrimination.

If the Church of Frazzled wants to have Wienderdog weddings and officiate over that and quote the good book of T-Bone and present the dogs as a married couple then more power to the Church of Frazzled.
If the Catholic Church wants to preach that only a man and woman can get married, and have wedding ceremonies that only include man and woman, then more power to them.
If a couple wants to have a dog officiate their wedding more power to them.
If a couple thinks that actually getting married is stupid, but they wear rings and present themselves as married to people more power to them.

But that doesn't mean that the state has to legally recognize any of them as legally married unless the had a legally binding wedding officiated by a licensed officiant. Just like it doesn't mean that the state can keep them from calling it whatever they want even if they don't recognize it legally.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh bull That depends on the law and who determine's who's making it doesn't it.
You're directly contravening the First Amendment, to the extent it will: 1) be poured out of court; 2) you might start a real civil war.
Government can say: you want these benefits, you have to do X. But government can't say you can't call yourselves married. I mean I know California has a sudden desire to regulate the bedroom, but that crap won't fly.

What the feth happened to you there.

I never said anything about not being able to call yourself married. I never said anything about not being able to have whatever marriage ceremony or wedding ceremony or "Uniting of the Schlongs" ceremony or "happy clambake" ceremony. Call it whatever the hell you want.

I said two things:

1) That I think it's stupid to no longer call the official government sanctioned version marriage and to switch it to civil unions.
2) That to officiate over an official government sanctioned and recognized wedding you have to be willing to officiate over the official government sanctioned and recognized wedding of everybody without discrimination.

If the Church of Frazzled wants to have Wienderdog weddings and officiate over that and quote the good book of T-Bone and present the dogs as a married couple then more power to the Church of Frazzled.
If the Catholic Church wants to preach that only a man and woman can get married, and have wedding ceremonies that only include man and woman, then more power to them.
If a couple wants to have a dog officiate their wedding more power to them.
If a couple thinks that actually getting married is stupid, but they wear rings and present themselves as married to people more power to them.

But that doesn't mean that the state has to legally recognize any of them as legally married unless the had a legally binding wedding officiated by a licensed officiant. Just like it doesn't mean that the state can keep them from calling it whatever they want even if they don't recognize it legally.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

More freedom is always better than less freedom. We're all equal and we should all be able to enjoy the freedom to be equally smart or stupid or ignorant or enlightened. A bigotted business owner is still just a person, same as me. I can easily explain to my children the problems with bigotry and point out nonbigotted businesses. It's not difficult to teach morality in a free society. Bigotry in business in a free market is never going to really prosper because by the nature of their bigotry they are only catering to a subset of the population rather than the whole. The level of bigotry being discussed in this thread is an inconvenience. If a subset of people have to go to a different store or restaurant because the one they wanted to patronize is owned by somebody that doesn't want their business it's not going to some kind of cataclysmic event that pushes society into chaos and anarchy with blood running in the streets. It's never been easier for people to publicize that kind of bigotry through social media and any business that turns away customers for silly reasons like that won't last long.

It's also 2014, there really aren't a whole lot of people out there who are running businesses that would put a "____ People Only" sign in their window if it weren't for those pesky anti discrimination laws. Seriously, does anyone actually know of a business that would start descriminating tomorrow if they had the freedom to do so? If there is a business owner out there that is that much of a bigot I wanted him/her to be overt about it so I can choose not to patronize their business rather than them keeping it hidden and taking my money. Back in the 1850s there was a large amount of anti Irish discrimination in Boston, NYC and other east coast cities following the large influx of immigrants due to the potato famine. To this day being Irish or of Irish descent doesn't make you part of a protected class yet there are no more Irish Need Not Apply or No Irish Allowed signs up in businesses. People got over their fears and stopped discriminating without having laws passed making it illegal.

The bigotry brought up by the OP and being discussed in the thread is a thought crime. Criminalizing thoughts is anathema to a free society and immoral. People should be free to think whatever thoughts they want and hold whatever opinions they want. I don't want the govt punishing people because they believe the "wrong" things. It's easy to say it's ok for the govt to punish bigots because bigotry is bad but that doesn't mean that bigots shouldn't have the same rights as non bigots. Society should only be concerned with criminalizing actions not thoughts. Actions affect others, thoughts are private. If you choose to commit assault, murder, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, etc. that's a crime regardless of the motivation so there is no need to criminalize the thoughts.

Just gonna interject to say you can probably run just fine actually The best projections for the clusterfeth that is the LGBTqblarkaslarka is, at most, somewhere around 15% of the population. And that is after assuming the highest percentage possible. Overall, it's likely significantly less (maybe pushing 5%. Maybe? In some pretty concentrated places?), almost un-noticeably small to the point where it doesn't cause a single hoot.

As per the argument, I'll agree with d-usa upon the fact that I like the whole "civil union" thing EXCEPT for one part. It seems very much like fine if we can't have it nobody can have it! *tosses something away so they can't have it* That and it seems unnecessarily complex to then dig through every single law in existence around marriage to change it to civil union. But hey, who knows maybe they'll see some of the strange laws still in there and get a laugh

 Frazzled wrote:

ON the positive I discovered something called Jim Beam Select. Yum

 StarTrotter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh bull That depends on the law and who determine's who's making it doesn't it.
You're directly contravening the First Amendment, to the extent it will: 1) be poured out of court; 2) you might start a real civil war.
Government can say: you want these benefits, you have to do X. But government can't say you can't call yourselves married. I mean I know California has a sudden desire to regulate the bedroom, but that crap won't fly.

What the feth happened to you there.

I never said anything about not being able to call yourself married. I never said anything about not being able to have whatever marriage ceremony or wedding ceremony or "Uniting of the Schlongs" ceremony or "happy clambake" ceremony. Call it whatever the hell you want.

I said two things:

1) That I think it's stupid to no longer call the official government sanctioned version marriage and to switch it to civil unions.
2) That to officiate over an official government sanctioned and recognized wedding you have to be willing to officiate over the official government sanctioned and recognized wedding of everybody without discrimination.

If the Church of Frazzled wants to have Wienderdog weddings and officiate over that and quote the good book of T-Bone and present the dogs as a married couple then more power to the Church of Frazzled.
If the Catholic Church wants to preach that only a man and woman can get married, and have wedding ceremonies that only include man and woman, then more power to them.
If a couple wants to have a dog officiate their wedding more power to them.
If a couple thinks that actually getting married is stupid, but they wear rings and present themselves as married to people more power to them.

But that doesn't mean that the state has to legally recognize any of them as legally married unless the had a legally binding wedding officiated by a licensed officiant. Just like it doesn't mean that the state can keep them from calling it whatever they want even if they don't recognize it legally.

May I request this Church of Frazzled marriage? It sounds truly amazing although I do hope cake is a necessity. Maybe two even

If the Church of Frazzled wants to have Wienderdog weddings and officiate over that and quote the good book of T-Bone and present the dogs as a married couple then more power to the Church of Frazzled.

 cincydooley wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Merely becoming an ordained priest doesn't make you lawfully able to sign off on a marriage license. I got ordained by multiple religions through a few minutes on the internet to prove a point to a friend. I'm officially ordained but I can't legally marry somebody unless I pay a fee and get registered by the state. I think history is pretty clear that the state chose to empower ordained ministers to legally marry people in order to make their religious ceremonies legally binding not in order to gain leverage to force religious leaders to act against their religion. If the state didn't want religious institution to perform lawful marriages the state wouldn't have empowered them to do so.

While I agree....a whole big part of me thinks that there should be more to legally joining someone than paying a fee and taking an online Buzzfeed quiz

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

ON the positive I discovered something called Jim Beam Select. Yum

That explains so much.

Also: will it be a required serving at any future Church of Frazzled wedding ceremonies?

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

He's not saying that, I don't think.

Fairly certain he's saying that Rabbis, priests, ministers, any schmuck off the internet, etc. shouldn't be performing legally binding marriages.

Pretty much this, or that they shouldn't be able to automatically be able to perform legally binding marriages simply by virtue of their religious status. .

It seems like I'm evolving into a form of the "make everything a civil union" argument, except for the whole "civil union" thing. I still think that getting rid of marriage seems like a kid taking his ball away because he would rather throw it across the fence than share it.

Make "marriage" and "weddings" a full blown state thing. Get a license by the state, get legally married, get the legal benefits. Everybody that wants to officiate over legally binding weddings cannot discriminate against any couples that are legally able to get married. If you want a religious ceremony then you can have your religious clergy perform one of those as well but it wouldn't affect the legal status of your marriage at all. Those private ceremonies can follow whatever rules their religion requires them to follow, at this point it's just a religious ceremony and not a legal state ceremony.

Clergy who are fine with marrying anyone can combine their two functions of "state-officiant" and "religious clergy" and have a ceremony that is both religious and legally binding.

Merely becoming an ordained priest doesn't make you lawfully able to sign off on a marriage license. I got ordained by multiple religions through a few minutes on the internet to prove a point to a friend. I'm officially ordained but I can't legally marry somebody unless I pay a fee and get registered by the state. I think history is pretty clear that the state chose to empower ordained ministers to legally marry people in order to make their religious ceremonies legally binding not in order to gain leverage to force religious leaders to act against their religion. If the state didn't want religious institution to perform lawful marriages the state wouldn't have empowered them to do so.

And if a priest doesn't want to perform a legally binding secular state sanctioned wedding then he is not compelled to apply for a license to do so. He can perform as many non-legally binding church weddings as he wants to.

But if you apply for a secular license to perform an act sanctioned by a secular government then you should be required to follow secular law.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Alcohol and opioids do not mix, Frazz. They do not mix, because they're both depressing to the CNS.

I know it was accidental on your part...just cautioning others too

Would hate to see Mrs. Frazzled making a post about your demise.

Prestor Jon wrote:

But that ignores the whole reasoning behind the priest becoming licensed. The priest gets the license in order to make the religious ceremony legally binding so that the couple getting married gets the paperwork done easier.

 Frazzled wrote:
You spelled intolerant wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gaydar is delighted to help heterosexual men have homo sex if they want it.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
CONFORM!!!! Conform damn you or go out of business. You have no right to serve people who believe as you do unless you serve those who despise you and your beliefs and think nothing of forcing you to violate your conscience.

Not only must you tolerate me, you must celebrate me. You must acknowledge that what I do is good and right. You cannot be allowed to express a view to the contrary in any forum or you will be driven out of your employment, held up for ridicule and damnation. It matters not whether your actions treat me like others, if your thoughts and words hint that you think I may be immoral you are to be punished in every way possible. You are a bigot. You are intollerant. You are evil. You are a fool. You are a hater. So you must be stopped, silenced, driven out of buisiness and fined.

You must help me adopt or be shut down. You must help me date or be shut down. You must participate in my wedding or be shut down. You must particiapte in my reception or be shut down. You must make a cake celebrating my lifestyle or be shut down. Yes there are hosts of other vendors who will gladly provide each of these services to me, but I chose to make you be the one that participates in my life activities so you must comply.

 Frazzled wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The question still remains: why would a gay couple go to a conservative christian business and demand to be married?

Should a gay person go to ChristianMingle.com to try and find a gay partner to hook up with?

Should a straight man go to gaydar.com and demand to be matched with a heterosexual female?

Those businesses are specifically geared toward a certain type of population: Christian singles and Gay singles.

Using your argument:
--- a straight man/woman should be able to file a lawsuit against Gaydar or PinkCupid because they don't offer them the chance to find some heterosexual company.

And under case law, they could.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't understand the problems. Is this the only place in US where you can get married? Can't the people who feel discriminated just walk into the other church next door? Why would you possibly want a wedding in a place were people dislike you? Why not allow people to perform only the marriages they want?
Or why not skip the religious ceremony altogether and just get the civil ceremony?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gaydar is delighted to help heterosexual men have homo sex if they want it.

 Ahtman wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
CONFORM!!!! Conform damn you or go out of business. You have no right to serve people who believe as you do unless you serve those who despise you and your beliefs and think nothing of forcing you to violate your conscience.

Not only must you tolerate me, you must celebrate me. You must acknowledge that what I do is good and right. You cannot be allowed to express a view to the contrary in any forum or you will be driven out of your employment, held up for ridicule and damnation. It matters not whether your actions treat me like others, if your thoughts and words hint that you think I may be immoral you are to be punished in every way possible. You are a bigot. You are intollerant. You are evil. You are a fool. You are a hater. So you must be stopped, silenced, driven out of buisiness and fined.

You must help me adopt or be shut down. You must help me date or be shut down. You must participate in my wedding or be shut down. You must particiapte in my reception or be shut down. You must make a cake celebrating my lifestyle or be shut down. Yes there are hosts of other vendors who will gladly provide each of these services to me, but I chose to make you be the one that participates in my life activities so you must comply.

I was worried someone wouldn't take this to absurd levels and show a profound misunderstanding of the situation, but thankfully those fears have been allayed.

 Ouze wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

That's.... that's not how nondiscrimination works.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
CONFORM!!!! Conform damn you or go out of business. You have no right to serve people who believe as you do unless you serve those who despise you and your beliefs and think nothing of forcing you to violate your conscience.

Not only must you tolerate me, you must celebrate me. You must acknowledge that what I do is good and right. You cannot be allowed to express a view to the contrary in any forum or you will be driven out of your employment, held up for ridicule and damnation. It matters not whether your actions treat me like others, if your thoughts and words hint that you think I may be immoral you are to be punished in every way possible. You are a bigot. You are intollerant. You are evil. You are a fool. You are a hater. So you must be stopped, silenced, driven out of buisiness and fined.

You must help me adopt or be shut down. You must help me date or be shut down. You must participate in my wedding or be shut down. You must particiapte in my reception or be shut down. You must make a cake celebrating my lifestyle or be shut down. Yes there are hosts of other vendors who will gladly provide each of these services to me, but I chose to make you be the one that participates in my life activities so you must comply.

I was worried someone wouldn't take this to absurd levels and show a profound misunderstanding of the situation, but thankfully those fears have been allayed.

It's not absurd, it is what is happening, but thanks for the vacuous response. Perhaps you are the one who has the profound misunderstanding of the situartion. Catholic charities was forced out of adoption because they didn't want to assist gay couples. EHarmony was sued for not including gays in their matchmaking. The wedding chapel in the OP is faced with the choice of shutting down or violatation their conscious. Other people in the wedding industry face the same. People in sports, entertainment and business who don't support gay marriage must be silent or face being fired. People exercising their express first amendment freedoms of religion and speech face by government and/or private entities if they don't remain silent on the issue.

No person should be forced to violate their conscience to help someone else throw a party, but that is what is happening. It should be repugnant to anyone who believes in freedom of conscience.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

That's.... that's not how nondiscrimination works.

supply and demand…gay marriage is rare. the rarity makes it more valuable. therefore a higher charge

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

That's.... that's not how nondiscrimination works.

supply and demand…gay marriage is rare. the rarity makes it more valuable. therefore a higher charge

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't understand the problems. Is this the only place in US where you can get married? Can't the people who feel discriminated just walk into the other church next door? Why would you possibly want a wedding in a place were people dislike you? Why not allow people to perform only the marriages they want?

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait till polygamy gets accepted

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait till polygamy gets accepted

Why shouldn't it be?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait till polygamy gets accepted

Why shouldn't it be?

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't think there are any rules against a woman having multiple husbands....

 d-usa wrote:


I can see it becoming accepted eventually, but it will probably be a much bigger legal fight.

Polygamy would probably be a bigger jump there, and it doesn't help the cause that it's not a huge population affected by it.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How would divorce work?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait till polygamy gets accepted

Why shouldn't it be?

Relapse wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How would divorce work?

Let's just say the husband doesn't want too many of those if he likes affording food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are several polygamist compunds south of here. One of my nephews worked for them and would occasionaly visit. One of the things he couldn't do while he was there was talk to the women.

Relapse wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How would divorce work?

Let's just say the husband doesn't want too many of those if he likes affording food.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How would divorce work?

Let's just say the husband doesn't want too many of those if he likes affording food.

Ouch. Bet that'd place stress on any remaining wives too

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
They are a business and as such should be regulated by the same laws as every other business.

I also find it hilarious that a "Conservative Christian" "church" makes a profit out of selling one of the sacred sacraments... I could have sworn that I read something in the bible about Jesus opening a can of whoopass on people just like that.

Selling the blessing of God for profit = good conservative Christians, apparently.

Where are they "sellling the blessings of God?"

They aren't, at all.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/19/this-is-love-fundraiser-for-aaron-melissa-klein/

This is another situation where the business is refusing service due to religious beliefs.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
CONFORM!!!! Conform damn you or go out of business. You have no right to serve people who believe as you do unless you serve those who despise you and your beliefs and think nothing of forcing you to violate your conscience.

Not only must you tolerate me, you must celebrate me. You must acknowledge that what I do is good and right. You cannot be allowed to express a view to the contrary in any forum or you will be driven out of your employment, held up for ridicule and damnation. It matters not whether your actions treat me like others, if your thoughts and words hint that you think I may be immoral you are to be punished in every way possible. You are a bigot. You are intollerant. You are evil. You are a fool. You are a hater. So you must be stopped, silenced, driven out of buisiness and fined.

You must help me adopt or be shut down. You must help me date or be shut down. You must participate in my wedding or be shut down. You must particiapte in my reception or be shut down. You must make a cake celebrating my lifestyle or be shut down. Yes there are hosts of other vendors who will gladly provide each of these services to me, but I chose to make you be the one that participates in my life activities so you must comply.

 Frazzled wrote:

alternatively:
Straight cakes are square.
Gay cakes are Fabulous!

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would also like to note that earlier in this thread it seemed being gay was compared to being overweight.

Yeah that's as stupid as it looks.

PhantomViper wrote:


Marriage is one of the sacred sacraments, its the blessing of god on the union, if they are charging money and making a profit from said marriage sacraments then they are basically selling the blessing of god since presumably they won't marry you unless you pay for it.

So yes, they are, which means that they couldn't actually be furthest from being an actual Christian church.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


I can see it becoming accepted eventually, but it will probably be a much bigger legal fight.

Agreed.

Polygamy would probably be a bigger jump there, and it doesn't help the cause that it's not a huge population affected by it.

Do we know that for certain?

I mean, there's over 6 million Mormons in the US. Granted, that's not to say that all Mormons want to be polygamous, but it's still relatively close to the Census estimate for homosexuals.

And that doesn't include any "free love" people living in communes and all that crazy gak.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Marriage is one of the sacred sacraments, its the blessing of god on the union, if they are charging money and making a profit from said marriage sacraments then they are basically selling the blessing of god since presumably they won't marry you unless you pay for it.

So yes, they are, which means that they couldn't actually be furthest from being an actual Christian church.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

They have a private facility. Bills for those facility need to be paid. Anyone helping facilitate the wedding needs to be paid.

You're not paying for the "blessing of the union" at all.

We had a full catholic wedding. We had to pay a small fee for building usage, for the organist to be there during non-mass hours, for the altar-girl to be there, etc.

Just because you're paying a nominal fee doesn't mean you're paying for the "blessing of god" and, honestly, shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole process.

Additionally, "sacred sacrament" is redundant.

Relapse wrote:


That's a huge misconception on your part about the LDS Church. It hasn't condoned polygamy for over 100 years, and anyone who practices it gets excommunicated. There are people that broke away and call themselves Mormons who practice it, bit they are not LDS.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would also like to note that earlier in this thread it seemed being gay was compared to being overweight.

Yeah that's as stupid as it looks.

Well, there are lots of people that say being overweight isn't a choice....so......

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


That's a huge misconception on your part about the LDS Church. It hasn't condoned polygamy for over 100 years, and anyone who practices it gets excommunicated. There are people that broke away and call themselves Mormons who practice it, bit they are not LDS.

And the ONLY reasons why the high elders "had a vision" and then condemned polygamy, was because otherwise, they would not have been allowed into the US Union (Utah is the ONLY state in the union with the express forbidding of polygamy in its state constitution), and because Joseph Smith's wife said that if he got multiple wives, she got multiple husbands That particular ruling was overturned when Smith died and Brigham Young took over, polygamy became the new "twerking" of that day.

Are "fundamentalist" Christians not still Christians? Are "fundamentalist" Muslims not still Muslims? Then, by all definitions, the "fundamentalist LDS" people who practice polygamy are still LDS, whether you like it or not.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I would also like to note that earlier in this thread it seemed being gay was compared to being overweight.

Yeah that's as stupid as it looks.

Well, there are lots of people that say being overweight isn't a choice....so......

Lots of people say God exists, doesn't make it true.

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


That's a huge misconception on your part about the LDS Church. It hasn't condoned polygamy for over 100 years, and anyone who practices it gets excommunicated. There are people that broke away and call themselves Mormons who practice it, bit they are not LDS.

And the ONLY reasons why the high elders "had a vision" and then condemned polygamy, was because otherwise, they would not have been allowed into the US Union (Utah is the ONLY state in the union with the express forbidding of polygamy in its state constitution), and because Joseph Smith's wife said that if he got multiple wives, she got multiple husbands That particular ruling was overturned when Smith died and Brigham Young took over, polygamy became the new "twerking" of that day.

Are "fundamentalist" Christians not still Christians? Are "fundamentalist" Muslims not still Muslims? Then, by all definitions, the "fundamentalist LDS" people who practice polygamy are still LDS, whether you like it or not.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

PhantomViper wrote:


But this isn't a regular church, its a for-profit organization and as such the values that they charge are much, much higher than the expenses that they have performing the ceremony. So yes, you are indeed paying for the sacrament in these types of "churches".

Relapse wrote:


That's a huge misconception on your part about the LDS Church. It hasn't condoned polygamy for over 100 years, and anyone who practices it gets excommunicated. There are people that broke away and call themselves Mormons who practice it, bit they are not LDS.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
In many if not most cases it would then be a self inflicted disease wouldn't it?

I mean, I'm ok with it being considered a disease that needs to be treated (symptoms and causes).

I mean, I'm a fat feth, but it's my damn fault I'm a fat feth.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


That's a huge misconception on your part about the LDS Church. It hasn't condoned polygamy for over 100 years, and anyone who practices it gets excommunicated. There are people that broke away and call themselves Mormons who practice it, bit they are not LDS.

And the ONLY reasons why the high elders "had a vision" and then condemned polygamy, was because otherwise, they would not have been allowed into the US Union (Utah is the ONLY state in the union with the express forbidding of polygamy in its state constitution), and because Joseph Smith's wife said that if he got multiple wives, she got multiple husbands That particular ruling was overturned when Smith died and Brigham Young took over, polygamy became the new "twerking" of that day.

Are "fundamentalist" Christians not still Christians? Are "fundamentalist" Muslims not still Muslims? Then, by all definitions, the "fundamentalist LDS" people who practice polygamy are still LDS, whether you like it or not.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

More than you give me credit for, apparently.

I know my history, it would seem that you do not know yours. But then, I'm guessing you are a Mormon, and so anything that I say that is verifiably true about your religion is automatically going to come off as an attack against it. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

 cincydooley wrote:
@Relapse - None of my comments were intended as a shot or slight at the LDS. Apologies if they were taken as such.

Relapse wrote:
[

I have heard it all over the years, most of it like your statements, either pulled out of context or fabrications.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:
[

I have heard it all over the years, most of it like your statements, either pulled out of context or fabrications.

How is: you cannot be a state in the USA, unless you specifically put "no polygamy" in your constitution. Taken out of context?

How is "Joseph Smith was against Polygamy because his wife made express her view that if he got multiple wives, she got multiple husbands" taken out of context?

How is "After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young instituted polygamy as a central belief and practice among Mormons" taken out of context?

How is, the LDS church did not allow ANY minorites to become members of the church until well into the civil rights movement (the 1970s actually), AND were only allowed in, after the Federal government was going to remove the religious tax exemptions, and the high elders "suddenly" had a vision that showed minorities of all types in heaven with all the whites; Taken out of context?



These are all things that are easily verified by independent research, but are VERY much swept under the rug, denied or otherwise shouted down for being brought up.

Relapse wrote:


No minorities allowed to be members of the church until the 1970's? Holy cow, son, you totaly screwed the pooch on that statement alone. You truly don't know what you are talking about.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


No minorities allowed to be members of the church until the 1970's? Holy cow, son, you totaly screwed the pooch on that statement alone. You truly don't know what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html?_r=0


And that was what... 5 seconds of google? So they may have been "allowed" to worship in the church, but once Young took control it definitely became a "white man's church" and still has many traces of that.



But hey... obviously, I'm not changing your beliefs here, and it's pretty well off topic, so I'll agree that we should get back to the topic at hand.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

But that ignores the whole reasoning behind the priest becoming licensed. The priest gets the license in order to make the religious ceremony legally binding so that the couple getting married gets the paperwork done easier.

So there is zero religious reason to having a priest perform a legally binding state sanctioned wedding, it's all just done to make paper work a little easier for the bride and groom, and that without having a state-issued license to officiate the church ceremony would still be exactly the same with the bride and groom committing themselves to a lifetime of marriage before God? The priest doesn't become licensed because his religion requires it?

Glad we got that figured out.

Solemnization Of Marriage
32-303 BY WHOM SOLEMNIZED

Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following Idaho officials: a current or retired justice of the supreme court, a current or retired court of appeals judge, a current or retired district judge, the current or a former governor, the current lieutenant governor, a current or retired magistrate of the district court, a current mayor or by any of the following: a current federal judge, a current tribal judge of an Idaho Indian tribe or other tribal official approved by an official act of an Idaho Indian tribe or priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination. To be a retired justice of the supreme court, court of appeals judge, district judge or magistrate judge of the district court, for the purpose of solemnizing marriages, a person shall have served in one (1) of those offices and shall be receiving a retirement benefit from either the judges retirement system or the public employee retirement system for service in the Idaho judiciary.

Title 32: Domestic Relations - Chapter 3: Solemnization of Marriage

The Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores supplied much-needed clarity on contested questions regarding the scope and substance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as applied to for-profit businesses. RFRA, which passed the House by voice vote, cleared the Senate by a vote of 97-3, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, provides a careful balancing test that requires – consistent with our nation’s best traditions –federal accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs except in those rare cases where the challenged state action is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling state interest.

How aboout a little more of the golden rule and less religion bashing please?

 Frazzled wrote:

How aboout a little more of the golden rule and less religion bashing please?

Well thats not gonna happen.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

How aboout a little more of the golden rule and less religion bashing please?

Well thats not gonna happen.

Except for the church of the Great Wienie... Not sure if it's because we all live in fear of it, or we have that much respect and admiration for it

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So I never got an answer in the last related thread.

Where does the clause pasted above every business I go into "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" end and it becomes discrimination?

Relapse wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So I never got an answer in the last related thread.

Where does the clause pasted above every business I go into "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" end and it becomes discrimination?

The sign can refer to abusive people, those that treat a business as a hangout, in the case of a game store I went to, they would boot people who were unhygenic, that kind of thing. As far as I know, the business cannot boot people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

its discrimanatory both ways there son, but nice try

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One you can choose to be. It's really not that difficult.

And that's the polite post.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

its discrimanatory both ways there son, but nice try

Forcing someone to comply with state laws so that they get the benefits of state laws is not discrimination, no matter how hard you wish that it were so.

 easysauce wrote:


its like you dont even read the posts... did you miss the part of my quote you cut out where I stated in THIS SPECIFIC CASE its not applicable?

 d-usa wrote:
It ends when they discriminate.

I am not aware of any state law that states "discrimination is illegal unless they totes got a sign up".

 d-usa wrote:
It would depend on the laws of whatever place they are anchored at wouldn't it? Or does it depend on place of registry?

Gookin said discrimination in any form is wrong, and this change reflects existing protections based on race, creed, color and national origin.

“I don’t think we can actually legislate from the Bible up here,” he said.

Councilwoman Deanna Goodlander said she does see parallels to North Idaho’s past struggles with white supremacists operating in the area.

“Human rights are human rights, period,” Goodlander said. “Coeur d’Alene has stood against hate – strong stances against hate.”

“We do have to send the message that intolerance does not belong in Coeur d’Alene,” she added.

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

More restrictive then typical marriage license in the US but ports that recognize same sex marriage can do them but the State may not recognize the license
Though I do know a certain federal agency that does ignore same sex marriage laws

 cincydooley wrote:
Jesus. The new civil rights movement dot com? You're gonna cite that?

Facepalm.

Additionally, they're not preaching any "hate bile". In fact, they aren't preaching at all.

Honestly, I hope they have plenty saved for retirement and close. Tell the city to feth right off.

City Councilman Mike Kennedy sponsored the ordinance, which is modeled after one adopted in Boise last year. It seeks to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.

The Idaho Legislature has spurned attempts each of the past seven years to add the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state’s Human Rights Act, which now bans discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age or disability.

In response, some cities have taken up the issue, beginning with Sandpoint in December 2011. Boise, Moscow and Ketchum followed with similar laws.

 agnosto wrote:


Nice, focus on my hyperbole and ignore the salient point that if his morals are so against the prevailing morals of the community in which he lives, it's his problem, not the community's.

 cincydooley wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Nice, focus on my hyperbole and ignore the salient point that if his morals are so against the prevailing morals of the community in which he lives, it's his problem, not the community's.

You're the one who offered the ridiculous comment about "hate-bile," not me.

And like I said, they're not even preaching. At all.

But according to Coeur d'Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley, the suit filed against the city has no grounds, since Hitching Post filed for religious corporation status with the secretary of state as a religious institution Oct. 6, exempting it from the nondiscrimination standard to which for-profit companies are held.

"I want to be clear that absent a change in the city's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable state or federal law, the city will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion," wrote Gridley in a memo to David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom.

"I believe that given the current facts, your clients' lawsuit is premature and not ripe for adjudication. As such, I would ask that you review this letter with your clients and urge them to dismiss their Iawsuit before any more time and resources are expended," he wrote.

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.