Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

 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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Show me in the bible where it says that baking a cake for a gay wedding is a sin?

Glad to see the state here isn't soft on crime.

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.

Anyone running a business does so in accordance with laws on discrimination and many other things. They get tax breaks and various benefits and services, it's not a one way street to help businesses operate entirely at their own whims, there's give and take. You want to run a business, you have rules to abide by. All responses like the above are similar to someone saying 'I can serve who I like and won't serve black people, if they want business they can go elsewhere'. That's not acceptable by any standards in the civilised world, so why is it ok to refuse all service to gay people? I'm aware of how difficult it is for people to get abortion and contraceptive services in some places in the US, because certain groups have managed to eliminate it from their area, so it's not like discrimination can't become organised or at least widespread. What happens when a black person can't go next door to get served, or the next door, or anywhere in the town? Or the next town? Is that acceptable because businesses should be allowed to serve who they like while having various benefits afforded to them on the public purse? Running a business has responsibilities that make it a bit different to choosing who you invite into your home, some people just don't seem to see that.

The real injustice that this thread brings up is the lack of gay bakeries and gay wedding cakes. As soon as I can figure out what the difference is between a gay cake and a straight cake I want to open a bakery and have it staffed by hot Chippendales type dancers in aprons. When there's a gap between market and demand the best strategy is to improvise and innovate in order to take on that business.

Everyone knows that.
Straight cakes are square.
Gay cakes are rhombus's.

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

The problem with baking cakes is that I would eat all the product. The wife actually has a pretty stocked kitchen for heavy baking. Its in her genes. She has some serious mixers and such.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

I can see it now: sample some of our cream filled long johns they're fabulous!!

Runs off to check domain availability for gaycakes.com



edit: Drat, beat to the punch http://www.gaycakes.com.au/

Throwing it out there for you Stan......Man Lingerie

 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......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

 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.

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:

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.

I also had a full catholic wedding and yes, you have to pay for all of those things and no, I wasn't talking about those payments that are meant to cover the actual expenses that the church had with the ceremony.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

They even say that they are not part of the LDS church.

A bit of history on polygamy:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 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.

Yes, but the American Medical Association wants to call obesity a disease..... oi vey!

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.

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".

Basically, we disagree and there's nothing that is going to change it.

You're paying for the use of their facilities, their time, etc, IMO.

But like I said, we clearly disagree here with no middle ground to be had, so we should probably leave it at that.

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.

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.

I probably didn't clarify my statement well enough. I indicated, or so I thought, that not all Mormons would be interested, and I was very loosely alluding to the LDS Church. But there are still people that call themselves Mormon that practice, or want to practice, the 'old ways."

Anyhoo....

I think if they can figure it out legally and contractually, then more power to it. Have as many husbands or wives as you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Haha, I'm with you on that last part. I think calling it a disease is troublesome for many reasons, but that's for another thread

 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.

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

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

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

No problem, I didn't take it 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

You were saying no minorities were allowed to be members until the 1970's and the church was going to be penalized by the government. This was about as wrong as you can get. Go ahead and change your story some more about what you were saying though.

Feel free to demonstrate the great "depth " of your knowledge.

That sucks... by far and large most churches openly welcome gays and the marrying of them.

Shame that this one is behind the times, but if they truely are registered as a for profit business, then IIRC they cannot use the right to refuse in this case, so they cant say no based on sexual orientation.



Far more people bash religions then gays these days, in this thread, and in real life, so while its totally ok to criticise this particular churches actions,

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

 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.

Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that Idaho requires registration to perform marriages like in my state. Idaho, which is where the Hitching Post is located, does not require an ordained person to register with the county or state in order to perform marriages. A county may require that proof of ordination be presented but that's it.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title32/T32CH3SECT32-303.htm

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

That just strengthens my point that no couple is entitled to force an ordained person to officiate their wedding against his or her will. I'm ordained, if I moved to Idaho and a couple asked me to marry them am I not allowed to say no? Why is it ok for a municipality or state to compel a private citizen to provide a service that violates his or her religious beliefs against his or her will?

If the Hitching Post is essentially just a banquet hall that people can rent out and hold wedding ceremonies in then a case could be made that as a for profit business the Hitching Post can't refuse to rent the facilities to somebody based solely on their sexuality given the anti discrimination ordinance that was passed. Even in that instance the state doesn't have the right to force an ordained person to preside over a wedding in violation of their religious beliefs.

There is also the recent SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case upholding the validity of the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act.
SCOTUSblog

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.

Same sex couples can get married in Idaho. Even if every ordained minister of every religionin Idaho refused to officiate same sex weddings that would not prevent same sex couples from getting married in Idaho. Government employees on both the local, state and federal level can marry same sex couples in Idaho and are required by law to marry any couples that can legally marry. Since the state offers an easily accessible alternative path for same sex couples to wed the state does not have any compeling interest to force ordained people into violating their religious beliefs.

Ordained people have always presided over wedding that only comply with the tenets of their respective religion. That's how it was for long before the USA existed and for the entirety that our nation has existed. Couples can find somebody from their respective relgion or use a secular official. Couples with no religious beliefs can be married by a secular official. No qualifying couple was prevented from getting married, everything worked fine. Why for the singular instance of same sex marriages does that system need to be changed?

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

Well thats not gonna happen.