Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First once again I clarified that it may not be happening in churches at this stage so you are asking me to support something I have already said may not be happening. In post #794 I replied to your post
The facts are I have provided evidence. But lets look at the bigger picture because that is the real issue. Do you honestly believe that no one is being denied their religious rights to freely express their beliefs and follow their conscience.
You need to vet your sources a little better. This old chestnut completely misrepresents what actually happened--basically it's a lie created to whip up anti-gay hysteria. The Hitching Post was a private wedding chapel run by a mail-order minister as a commercial business. When he refused to marry gay couples, noise started to be made about it. The Coeur d'Alene city attorney told the minister that as a commercial operation he was bound by public accommodation laws and could be subject to legal action if he refused to marry gays but that if he reorganized his business as a church the problem would go away--and that's what happened; the problem went away.
According to the latest update on the case the City ended up paying the owners of the Hitching Post compensation for the time they had been closed. So it looks like there is conflicting information being passed on. At the end of the day as far as I understand it from lawyers that even if they were a for profit privately owned business they should still have the right to refuse to perform SSM under the constitution and Human rights. This has been the case with other businesses who have won their case such as Phillips with the Wedding Cake case.
That depends what you mean by won. The real question should be why are Christians being attacked and taken to court or threatened to be taken to court and persecuted causing suffering whether they lose or win. If they have a right to religious freedom and to follow their conscience then why cause all this suffering in the first place. The fact that you ask the question as to why should I or anyone else complain is the problem. You can't even see that there is a problem.
Why should Christians be exempt from the consequences of their public acts? When a person believes he has been harmed in some way by the behavior of another, it is often appropriate to seek relief in the courts. Should a Christian be out of his reach? Should Christians be exempt from criticism or social pressure that everyone else must face? How should a Christian resolve the conflict between his values and those of the larger society?
They are not all public acts. What a private school or business does is their business. They descriminate all the time regarding what sort of b usiness or organisation they want to carry out. The question should be according to the right to follow your conscience why should someone be made to follow or express something that their conscience is against. Why make someone write celebratory vows or create a Tshirt celebrating SSM when they fundelmentally oppose it. If someone asked a gay business person to create a cake promoting traditional marriage would they be forced to do it. Would they have the right to say no.
Well yes a Christian should not be attacked and taken to court if they have a constitutional and human right to express their belief and follow their conscience. Just as some of the courts have found in favour of those being accused that the reason they chose not to accommodate the request from gay couples was not about hatred of them but that the request would require them to partipate, create and celebrate something that fundelmentally went against their conscience. The courts agrred and to force a person to go against their conscience like that is nothing short of a totalititarianism. Something we see regimes like North Korea do in forcing people up before the camera to read out something that the person does not believe.
Yes, they should be taken to court. Under the law, the exact boundaries of religious freedoms are determined in the courts. "following my conscience" is not a get out of it card. If a Christian discriminates, say, in violation of the law he will be brought to court just like a non-Christian and there is no reason why he shouldn't be. "You can't charge me with discrimination--I'm a Christian." So what?
So it looks like the boundaries are being determined.
The state authorizes only one kind of marriage--and have extended it to gays. It is a purely civil arrangement which does not change or interfere with any traditional practices within your faith group. Christians don't own the term "marriage" and cannot define for others what it means.
But the law also states
If thats the case why do they keep bringing people before the courts for the same issues that have already been determined. PLus the issue had been determined well before anyone was taken to court in the First Amendment and Human Rights.
Yet the redefining of marriage has now made it it line with gays and in doing so has discounted traditional marriage. Now traditional marriage is regarded as illegal to promote and to an increasing number is a form of bigotry.
That particular post you highlighted is about a specific example where the outcome supported the religion and believers to not have to go along with SSM. But there are many cases where the people have been forced to conform and have had to close down or stop that part of their service.
No one is saying that Christian marriage should be the only marriage available. But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal. That is why many supporters of traditional marriage including non-religious ones were opposed to the way the changes happened. They predicted that these attacks on traditional marriage would happen and no one listened and now we are seeing it happening on a regular basis.
Yes I agree that people can expect disagreement and name calling under free speech but not actions that destroy lives and deny people to live with their beliefs. As I said in todays PC environment even expressing that you support traditional marriage is not being allowed by more and more people and outlets and this can lead to people losing privileges, being demoted, closed down, losing benefits, being attacked on social media , threatened and even getting sacked IE
Then you are very naive. The above examples are just a small portion of what is happening. Think about it. If its now law that the definition of marriage is between two people then promoting marriage as between a male and female is opposing that law.
I really don’t think you are thinking this through and are being realistic. It would be nice if it was that way but it hasn’t been that way for many and I can only see it getting worse. Many traditionalist will have their lives made hard, will be excluded, and their position becoming increasingly untenable.
Correct. And that is exactly what is happening. Giving Christians a pass on complying with public accommodation and discrimination laws would violate the 1st Amendment.
Cases vary in details and the laws in question are often state and local and must be tried locally.
The issue is not determined until it is taken to court. The court is where it will be determined whether you have violated public accommodation or discrimination laws. You can't just declare yourself not guilty because you're a Christian.
That is so wrong and disconnected from reality that I can't even call it a fib.
There is a few problems with associating traditional marriage only with the Christian position. If you look up the definition of traditional marriage you will find it is between a man and women which is the same as the Christian definition. This definition has been well recognised in western cultures for 100's or years by both Christians and non-Christians. I think when you say traditional marriage you are not just talking about the Christian definition but also politically a conservative one. It more or less is a universal meaning.
Not allowing a person the freedom to follow their conscience is also a violation of the 1st Amendment and human rights. It’s funny how you only see one side of the rights issue. Seems there’s a bit of bias there.
It’s not about being a Christian. The people involved could be any religion. The point is they are protected under the 1st Amendment as stated above. It should not have to be continually rehashed with the same situations which have been happening.
Then you must be living on another planet to myself and many others and even legal experts and judges themselves. IE
That's really over the top, but I have to admit if it was true it would be hard not to take some pleasure in seeing religious conservatives being handed back what they have been dishing out for so many years.
