Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

Kylie · Apr 9, 2021

stevevw said:
Yes I meant not the church itself. Why would I say it may not be happening in the church at the moment but other church owned entities like schools for example. That means not the physical building of the church where they hold the Mass but their other connected buildings like schoools halls, seminaries and the reps of that church like priests and marriage celebrates that perform the curches duties outside the physical church.

Yes, I get that, and I never once said they didn't count. I just didn't include it because I didn't want to spend all that time writing out all those words each and every single time I wanted to say it.

You vehemently claimed there was not a single example and now you admit there are at least 1. See that is why I persist as I know that you were abitrarily deciding what criteria should count as I said. So based on that same position you have taken I wonder how many others now count if I persist.

How many others? I dunno, how many of them actually involved a church (or a priest, school, etc) being forced to perform an actual same sex marriage? I'd be happy to go through each and every example you have posted in this thread and determine if they involved a same sex marriage being performed.

Sorry just rechecked this as I originally did it off the top of my head knowing there was an example but I got the name wrong. Its actually Ocean Grove not Ornage Grove. Here is the article
Judge: Christian Group Can't Bar Same-Sex Ceremony on NJ Property

They willingly made the property a public space to get a tax break, then they are required to follow the laws for what can and can't happen when they make their property a public space. If they didn't want the lesbian couple to get married there, they could have just not made it a public space. Then they could have done what they want. Seems to me they just want the benefits but none of the responsibility.

Like I said I am posting each example so we determine if they do apply. Considering your acknowledgement that I was right about Bishop Love despite your constant denial lets see if there are others.

Like I said, I'd be happy to go through each and every one of the examples you posted and point out if they contain an example of a church (or priest, or school or whatever, just to make it clear) being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

First there wasnt 40 examples thats an exaggeration.

That's what I counted.

From post 801:

1
Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding
A United Methodist pastor is facing a complaint under church law because he declined to officiate at a same-sex wedding.
Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding | United Methodist News Service

2
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he wants to marry partner Tony in a church
Said that the only way forward is to challenge the church in court
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church | Daily Mail Online

3
Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings
Lawsuit challenges county law forcing officiant to create vows, pray over same-sex weddings if she celebrates marriage between one man and one woman. The law also forbids Stokes from explaining on her company’s website or social media “that she can only provide wedding services consistent with her religious views on marriage and gender.”
Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings

4
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
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. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," Tedesco said. ," we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack.
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

5
Swedish P.M. Vows to Force All Priests to Perform Same-Sex Marriages Even If Their Faith Tells Them Not To
Sweden's Prime Minister has vowed to force all priests working for the Church of Sweden to perform same-sex marriages even if their faith tells them not to.
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...f.it.goes.against.their.conscience/110471.htm

6
Episcopal Bishop William Love announces resignation in response to hearing panel ruling
A bishop of The Episcopal Church announced that he'll be stepping down from office weeks after the denomination’s disciplinary panel ruled that he violated canon law by refusing to allow same-sex marriages in his diocese.
Episcopal Bishop William Love announces resignation in response to hearing panel ruling

7
California Raids Christian School, Seeks to Change Its Beliefs or Shut It Down
The school fears that it would not be able to uphold its rules reflecting traditional Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Among other things, the school stresses that it could be forced to accommodate religious rituals that are inconsistent with the Christian faith
“In 25 years of practice, I have never seen this level of aggressive, militant, and ideologically-driven conduct by a State agency against a religious institution,”
https://www.pacificjustice.org/pres...-seeks-to-change-its-beliefs-or-shut-it-down/

8
2 Gay Students Are Suing a Seminary. Here’s Why It Matters.
A man and a woman, both in same-sex marriages, have sued Fuller Theological Seminary for discrimination after it expelled them over their same-sex marriages.
2 Gay Students Are Suing a Seminary. Here’s Why It Matters. | The Stream

9
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard
A pastor at an evangelical church in Brisbane, Australia, has said the church has received serious threats online, including one vowing to burn it down, after it posted a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard

10
Canadian School District Quits Operation Christmas Child Over Gay Marriage Stance
A school district in Canada has ended its participation in the Samaritan's Purse children's charity program Operation Christmas Child after complaints were received about the Franklin Graham-led evangelical organization's stance on human sexuality.
Canadian School District Quits Operation Christmas Child Over Gay Marriage Stance

11
Bishop will appeal restriction on punishing priests for same-sex marriages, challenge convention action
An Episcopal Church bishop who was punished for refusing to allow gay marriages in his diocese has stated that he plans to appeal the punishment.
Bishop will appeal restriction on punishing priests for same-sex marriages, challenge convention action

12
Christian gallery forced to close for refusing to host same-sex marriage reopens as church
While that case involved the provision of camping services rather than wedding services, there are a number of similarities: the event in question was clearly conveying a message contrary to the religious beliefs of the business owner (the camp was avowedly about “normalising” homosexual activity), and the business owner was said (by the court) not to be a religious organisation.
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...same-sex-marriage-reopens-as-church/69398.htm

13
'It's not okay to vote No': Boss fires worker over same-sex marriage views
Sims even admits that her firing of Madeline was "bigoted."
"What I did was bigoted," she said. "But is it worse for me to be a bigot fighting for the rights of homosexuals or is it worse for her being a bigot telling people they can't have equality?"
Boss fires worker over same-sex marriage views

14
This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.
This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.

15
Beto O’Rourke says churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage
Former Texas representative and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Thursday that churches, charities and other religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status. And if he becomes president, this is a policy that he will seek to quickly enforce by executive action
“The LGBT radicals are determined not merely to achieve ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ – they will brook no dissent whatsoever: anyone who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be silenced pushed from the public square. And if it’s a charity, Church, or institution, it must be shut down.”
Beto O’Rourke says churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage

16
Robert Jeffress: Supreme Court Has 'Declared Open Season' on Christians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
if the government can remove the tax-exempt status of religious schools who "violate" a civil rights law by not allowing a married same-sex couple to stay in the same dorm room, why couldn't the government do the same for churches that refuse to honor same-sex marriages?
"Once you enshrine gay marriage as a civil right, which is what the court did today, then anyone who opposes gay marriage will be guilty of a civil rights violation,"
Robert Jeffress: Supreme Court Has 'Declared Open Season' on Christians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

From post 812:

17
Supreme Court vacates ruling against Christian bakers punished for not making gay wedding cake
The United States Supreme Court vacated a ruling against a Christian couple forced to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.
Supreme Court vacates ruling against Christian bakers punished for not making gay wedding cake

18
Christian Farmer who happened to just voice support for traditional marriage on Facebook was banned from the Farmers Market where he made his livlihood which could have ruined him. Luckily the City realised the stupidity of their actions
Banned farmer allowed to return to farmer's markets for rest of season
Banned farmer allowed to return to farmer's markets for rest of season

19
Minister of religions was being forced to write pro SSM vows, and do SSM. Thankfully courts realized how this was a denial of religious freedom and conscience.
Facing lawsuit, Ohio county agrees not to force minister to officiate, write for same-sex weddings
adflegal.org › press-release › facing-lawsuit-ohio-count...

20
Baker Forced to Make Gay Wedding Cakes
Stokes said Northeast Ohio is home to many diverse viewpoints, “and I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
Wedding officiant sues Ohio county over law forcing ministers to officiate same-sex weddings

To be continued...

Kylie · Apr 9, 2021

Continued...

From post 822:

21
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings
I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings

22
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings
“Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings | Snopes.com

From post 833

23
A long serving Fire Chief was sacked for simply writing a book on his life as a fire fighter and happened to mention his beliefs on traditional marriage. Talk about denying free speech. He was awarded damages but the damage had already been done.
Atlanta to pay $1.2 million to former fire chief after firing him, violating his First Amendment freedoms
And you say that no one is denying free speech and its another scare tactic. These example sure tell a different story.

24
Family First stripped of charity status
Simply for their belief about traditional families. “It appears that certain views of marriage and family are now deemed out-of-bounds by the State.
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ

25
Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

26
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
So a women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful. This is clear evidence that people cannot even express their beliefs without being penalized.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

27
A church gets threats that it will be burnt down simply for expressing their belief on a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard

28
I mean even a Superman Comic writer has his editions edited out of history for merely expressing his views supporting traditional marriage. What next.
Superman Comic Writer Edited Out of Series for Support of Traditional Marriage

29
Move against Archbishop Porteous ‘astonishing’ and ‘alarming’: Archbishop Fisher
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP has denounced as “astonishing” and “alarming” the prospect of a Catholic bishop being dragged before a tribunal simply for stating the Catholic view on marriage, suggesting that it would constitute a betrayal of freedoms long valued in Australian democracy.
Move against Archbishop Porteous 'astonishing' and 'alarming': Archbishop Fisher | The Catholic Weekly

30
Similarly, media outlets such as The Guardian Australia openly refused to publish opinions from traditional marriage proponents about the consequences of same-sex marriage. Hence, the outlet adopted the curious view that legislating for same-sex marriage carried no consequences except for those its editors gave their personal blessing. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality

31
Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation
https://xtramagazine.com/power/trinity-western-to-sue-after-being-denied-accreditation-60463

32
Printers refuse to print book simply becuase it supports traditional marriage
“This is the first time that a publisher has refused a book on ideological grounds.
Log into Facebook

33
A doctor was forced out of his potion on the Victorian Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he supports traditional families.
Why because of his support for traditional families in that a child with a mother an father does better
Doctor quits rights board after same-sex row

34
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
The City of Houston even wanted to subpoena priests to check on their sermons to control their speech on what they can and cannot say regarding their marriage. Talk about a denial of free speech and Nazi like behaviour.
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage

35
People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

36
In several European countries state and even church schools must now teach homosexuality amongst the range of options for children. Religious leaders, such as the Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, have been sacked for daring to differ. In Spain same-sex lobby groups want to prosecute a bishop for hate speech after he preached in favour of Catholic teaching on marriage.
Truth, marriage and the threat to religious liberty

37
A society that holds the right of same-sex couples to “marry” on par with that of opposite-sex couples cannot tolerate the presence of those who defend the traditional definition of marriage exclusively. It simply isn’t possible. Whenever we deal with “rights” in this way, we imply that there’s something intrinsic to our humanity at stake. Our rights are, after all, “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator”. If someone denies one of those “rights” – however trivial it may seem – it inevitably appears grossly offensive. It denies part of our humanity.
Sweden to Force Priests to Perform Same-sex Marriage

From post 846:

38
In October 2011 Toowoomba GP Dr David van Gend was forced to appear before Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commission to respond to a complaint about an article that he wrote for The Courier-Mail arguing against any change to marriage laws. The complainant, the gay activist and serial litigator from NSW, Gary Burns, claimed the entire point of that article amounted to vilification simply because he didn't like the doctor's point of view:

The complainant, Mr Burns, did not have to appear before the commission and would suffer no penalty for his non-appearance. His complaint was ultimately withdrawn, but not before the doctor was forced to appear before the Commission and spend a few thousand dollars on legal fees.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

39
As another example, conservative political activist Bernard Gaynor has been the subject of 28 complaints during a period of just 24 months—all lodged by one man, Gary Burns, the Sydney gay rights activist and serial litigator. So far, none of the complaints has been substantiated but Gaynor must head back into costly legal fights that are also part of a strategy to allow anti-free speech laws in one state to be used against those living in another. He has spent more than $50,000 in legal fees fending off the complaints and believes the system encourages anti-free-speech activists such as Burns to lodge complaints. As Gaynor points out, I am winning the legal battles at the moment, but the process is the punishment… There is no risk to the person lodging these complaints.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

Second you originally cliamed that Biship Loves example did not completely apply. Now you do. So how do we know you are not also wrong about other examples.

I gave that to you because I'm being generous, and also because I get the feeling that you'd never let it go and the discussion would stagnate if I didn't. But I will point out that it was his own church that said it, not someone outside the church, and no one was forcing he himself to perform the ceremony. It's more a case of he ran one of the churches and his bosses said, here's what we're going to do, and he didn't want it to happen at his church. And since he has to answer to them, and he didn't like it, he resigned.

So lets see. The Ocean Gove example is awaiting your reply.

Already replied.

So how do you explain that we got on to freedom of speech rights.

Probably because you derailed the discussion.

How do you explain that you made the claim that no one is being denied freedom of speech in promoting TM.

Because no one is. People can celebrate the right for a man and a woman to get married as much as they want. No one is stopping them.

If you trace that conversation back you will find it was a natural extention of our debate.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you can just switch over to that topic and pretend it answers a question I asked about a previous topic.

Are you now wanting to erase whole sections ofour debate like it doesnt count anymore. You know we can discuss more than 1 issue at a time. It seems you are trying to control the debate.

I know we can discuss more than one issue at a time, and I generally have no problem with that. My problem in this case is that you are trying to change the topic so you can avoid answering a specific question I asked.

Now, as I've said several times now, I'm happy to move onto a different topic if you'd like. All you have to do is either admit your claim that churches (and so on, you know what I mean and I don't want you thinking I'm trying to sneak an escape clause past you) are being forced to perform same sex weddings against their will, or provide some evidence to back up your claim (and since I'm rapidly becoming less and less generous feeling with you, I'm not going to count the Bishop Love example because 1; it wasn't his church, he was more a guy running one restaurant in a franchise and still has to follow the rules set by his superiors, even if he doesn't like them, and 2: no one forced him to perform the wedding).

Wait a minute, the conversation I just posted shows we were discussing freedom of speech regarding the right to promote TM without getting hauled to court or attacked and losing your job. If you trace the conversation back you will find it was a natural progression of our conversation. You can’t just ignore and wipe out large sections of a debate like it didn’t happen because you don’t feel like dealing with it. You can't just control a conversation like your the thought and language police.

No, YOU were discussing it, I was repeatedly asking you to actually answer my question, which you pretty much ignored.

One example and another one pending. We will see.

No. You've got half an example at best.

First like I said there are other examples yet to be proven. You have acknowledge one example for which you originally denied so lets see if theres more directly relating to church associated entities. The Ocean Grove examples is one.

The Bishop love example I've changed my mind on, for reasons I outlined above. The Oceans Grove example I have already addressed.

But now we are getting down to the crux of the matter. You just said that Ive taken a single instance of this happening to a single person and then claiming that the rights of Christians all over are being torn away. When you make that claim "that Christians all over" then you have to include examples ' all over' where this has happened including outside the church and its entities.

Except none of your other examples came even remotely close to showing a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage. (And don;t even think of criticising that I didn't say "and associated entities" here because you know exactly what I mean.)

I contunally said you are restricting the issue of people being denied religious freedom to a narrow criteria and you kept fixating this criteria on the Church at first and then the Church related entities. I said that the issue is much wider than this as with Christian Cake makers, Floral arrangers, wedding photographers, marriage celebtates, private business's who are also being denied their rights.

But we aren't talking about people's religious freedoms, we are talking about your claim that churches are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will and then not being able to provide any good examples of that.

So when we widen the criteria and take all these Christians cases into consideration as well as all the freedom of speech rights where Christians are being attacked and suffering damages there is a wide spread denial of "Christians all over" being denied their rights relating to the law changes regarding SSM and TM.

No one is being denied their right to have a traditional marriage.

stevevw · Apr 9, 2021

Speedwell said:
No, it's just another opinion to those who don't hold it. Opinions are not dealt with by the Constitution, whether religious or otherwise.

Wait a minute you have just said Mr Phillips beliefs are just another opinion to others who dont hold it and then in the next breath say that opinions are not dealth with by the Consitution. Yet Mr Phillips and other peoples beliefs are dealth with by the Consitution. So you are contradicting yourself.

The Constitution only has to do with the expression of opinions and actions taken based on them.

Yes but it depends on what that belief is. If the belief or as you say is not offensive then no one is going to be offended and there is no issue. But if it is percieved as offensive or a denial of a persons rights then its a matter for the consitution. So not all beliefs or opinions are equal in rhetoric.

Neither can Mr. Phillips. Only actions and statements can be considered by the courts. Opinions are out of their reach.

Then whats a statement. Whats the difference between a statement and an opinion. If that is the case then why is a persons belief or as you say opinion about TM attacked and some people are taken to court or a tribunal for simply expressing that belief or opinion and in some cases win the right to express that belief

stevevw · Apr 9, 2021

Kylie said:
Yes, I get that, and I never once said they didn't count. I just didn't include it because I didn't want to spend all that time writing out all those words each and every single time I wanted to say it.

But by not specifying things you give the impression that you still want examples happening in the actual church itself. In fact on at least one occassion you did state church and then mention church buildings as well which certainly gives that impression. You need to be more careful with your rhetoric.

How many others? I dunno, how many of them actually involved a church (or a priest, school, etc) being forced to perform an actual same sex marriage? I'd be happy to go through each and every example you have posted in this thread and determine if they involved a same sex marriage being performed.

There may be many. Like I said it may be because of your overly strict criteria that you are not allowing others. We will see.

They willingly made the property a public space to get a tax break, then they are required to follow the laws for what can and can't happen when they make their property a public space. If they didn't want the lesbian couple to get married there, they could have just not made it a public space. Then they could have done what they want. Seems to me they just want the benefits but none of the responsibility.

They did not want to hold marriages on the pier. It was their property regardless of tax examptions. They were not profiting from anything but rather opening up their property for others to enjoy. Regardless of the tax laws they had the right under the Consitution not to be forced to hold SSM that were against their belief.

As mentioned other places like Adoption agencies, Cake makers, schools are open to the public and have the right to determine who they accommodate without losing their tax exemptions. The fact is they were being forced to hold SSM on their property and were penalized.

Like I said, I'd be happy to go through each and every one of the examples you posted and point out if they contain an example of a church (or priest, or school or whatever, just to make it clear) being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

That's what I counted.

From post 801:

1
Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding
A United Methodist pastor is facing a complaint under church law because he declined to officiate at a same-sex wedding.
Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding | United Methodist News Service

2
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he wants to marry partner Tony in a church
Said that the only way forward is to challenge the church in court
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church | Daily Mail Online

3
Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings
Lawsuit challenges county law forcing officiant to create vows, pray over same-sex weddings if she celebrates marriage between one man and one woman. The law also forbids Stokes from explaining on her company’s website or social media “that she can only provide wedding services consistent with her religious views on marriage and gender.”
Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings

4
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
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. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," Tedesco said. ," we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack.
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

5
Swedish P.M. Vows to Force All Priests to Perform Same-Sex Marriages Even If Their Faith Tells Them Not To
Sweden's Prime Minister has vowed to force all priests working for the Church of Sweden to perform same-sex marriages even if their faith tells them not to.
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...f.it.goes.against.their.conscience/110471.htm

6
Episcopal Bishop William Love announces resignation in response to hearing panel ruling
A bishop of The Episcopal Church announced that he'll be stepping down from office weeks after the denomination’s disciplinary panel ruled that he violated canon law by refusing to allow same-sex marriages in his diocese.
Episcopal Bishop William Love announces resignation in response to hearing panel ruling

7
California Raids Christian School, Seeks to Change Its Beliefs or Shut It Down
The school fears that it would not be able to uphold its rules reflecting traditional Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Among other things, the school stresses that it could be forced to accommodate religious rituals that are inconsistent with the Christian faith
“In 25 years of practice, I have never seen this level of aggressive, militant, and ideologically-driven conduct by a State agency against a religious institution,”
https://www.pacificjustice.org/pres...-seeks-to-change-its-beliefs-or-shut-it-down/

8
2 Gay Students Are Suing a Seminary. Here’s Why It Matters.
A man and a woman, both in same-sex marriages, have sued Fuller Theological Seminary for discrimination after it expelled them over their same-sex marriages.
2 Gay Students Are Suing a Seminary. Here’s Why It Matters. | The Stream

9
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard
A pastor at an evangelical church in Brisbane, Australia, has said the church has received serious threats online, including one vowing to burn it down, after it posted a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard

10
Canadian School District Quits Operation Christmas Child Over Gay Marriage Stance
A school district in Canada has ended its participation in the Samaritan's Purse children's charity program Operation Christmas Child after complaints were received about the Franklin Graham-led evangelical organization's stance on human sexuality.
Canadian School District Quits Operation Christmas Child Over Gay Marriage Stance

11
Bishop will appeal restriction on punishing priests for same-sex marriages, challenge convention action
An Episcopal Church bishop who was punished for refusing to allow gay marriages in his diocese has stated that he plans to appeal the punishment.
Bishop will appeal restriction on punishing priests for same-sex marriages, challenge convention action

12
Christian gallery forced to close for refusing to host same-sex marriage reopens as church
While that case involved the provision of camping services rather than wedding services, there are a number of similarities: the event in question was clearly conveying a message contrary to the religious beliefs of the business owner (the camp was avowedly about “normalising” homosexual activity), and the business owner was said (by the court) not to be a religious organisation.
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...same-sex-marriage-reopens-as-church/69398.htm

13
'It's not okay to vote No': Boss fires worker over same-sex marriage views
Sims even admits that her firing of Madeline was "bigoted."
"What I did was bigoted," she said. "But is it worse for me to be a bigot fighting for the rights of homosexuals or is it worse for her being a bigot telling people they can't have equality?"
Boss fires worker over same-sex marriage views

14
This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.
This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.

15
Beto O’Rourke says churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage
Former Texas representative and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Thursday that churches, charities and other religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status. And if he becomes president, this is a policy that he will seek to quickly enforce by executive action
“The LGBT radicals are determined not merely to achieve ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ – they will brook no dissent whatsoever: anyone who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be silenced pushed from the public square. And if it’s a charity, Church, or institution, it must be shut down.”
Beto O’Rourke says churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage

16
Robert Jeffress: Supreme Court Has 'Declared Open Season' on Christians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
if the government can remove the tax-exempt status of religious schools who "violate" a civil rights law by not allowing a married same-sex couple to stay in the same dorm room, why couldn't the government do the same for churches that refuse to honor same-sex marriages?
"Once you enshrine gay marriage as a civil right, which is what the court did today, then anyone who opposes gay marriage will be guilty of a civil rights violation,"
Robert Jeffress: Supreme Court Has 'Declared Open Season' on Christians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

From post 812:

17
Supreme Court vacates ruling against Christian bakers punished for not making gay wedding cake
The United States Supreme Court vacated a ruling against a Christian couple forced to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.
Supreme Court vacates ruling against Christian bakers punished for not making gay wedding cake

18
Christian Farmer who happened to just voice support for traditional marriage on Facebook was banned from the Farmers Market where he made his livlihood which could have ruined him. Luckily the City realised the stupidity of their actions
Banned farmer allowed to return to farmer's markets for rest of season
Banned farmer allowed to return to farmer's markets for rest of season

19
Minister of religions was being forced to write pro SSM vows, and do SSM. Thankfully courts realized how this was a denial of religious freedom and conscience.
Facing lawsuit, Ohio county agrees not to force minister to officiate, write for same-sex weddings
adflegal.org › press-release › facing-lawsuit-ohio-count...

20
Baker Forced to Make Gay Wedding Cakes
Stokes said Northeast Ohio is home to many diverse viewpoints, “and I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
Wedding officiant sues Ohio county over law forcing ministers to officiate same-sex weddings

To be continued...

I checked the continuing list. Once again you are playing shift the goal posts.
First there are at least 3 or 4 on the first list which are repeats or nothing to do with examples but rather quotes.
Second you are repeating the same examples in post 812 and 822 that were originally posted in post 801.
Third we were talking about the examples related to forcing someone to perfoirm SSM so all those examples from post 833 starting from number 23 (the Fire Chief) don't count as they are about free speech and not being forced to perform SSM. You even stated that it has to be about being forced to perform SSM over and over again. IE
Kylie said of the Fire Chief example
And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.
Then Kylie repeats this for just about every example IE
And once again, this was NOT an example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble actually answering my question. None of these have been instances of churches being forced to perform same sex marriages.

ect, ect

First you want to ignore those examples and refuse to count them and now you want to count them. I mean I will count them if you want and this will add even more examples of how people are being force to go along with the SSM laws and ideology.

Kylie · Apr 9, 2021

stevevw said:
There may be many. Like I said it may be because of your overly strict criteria that you are not allowing others. We will see.

My overly strict criteria? My criteria are the same as yours. A church, priest, or other associated entity being force to conduct a same sex marriage. Apart from the Bishop Love case, none of the examples you gave came close to addressing that.

They did not want to hold marriages on the pier. It was their property regardless of tax examptions. They were not profiting from anything but rather opening up their property for others to enjoy. Regardless of the tax laws they had the right under the Consitution not to be forced to hold SSM that were against their belief.

So what? They applied to make it a public space to get a tax benefit. They were told, "If you want the tax benefit, these are the rules you will have to abide by." By agreeing to the conditions, they agreed to abide by the rules required, an agreement which they broke.

As mentioned other places like Adoption agencies, Cake makers, schools are open to the public and have the right to determine who they accommodate without losing their tax exemptions. The fact is they were being forced to hold SSM on their property and were penalized.

Here's a question for you. If, instead of the "no gay people" attitude, they had a "no black people" attitude, would you consider them racist?

I checked the continuing list. Once again you are playing shift the goal posts.
First there are at least 3 or 4 on the first list which are repeats or nothing to do with examples but rather quotes.
Second you are repeating the same examples in post 812 and 822 that were originally posted in post 801.

That still leaves 35 at least, and it also suggests that you were attempting to bolster your position by including examples more than once and hoping that we wouldn't notice.

Third we were talking about the examples related to forcing someone to perfoirm SSM so all those examples from post 833 starting from number 23 (the Fire Chief) don't count as they are about free speech and not being forced to perform SSM. You even stated that it has to be about being forced to perform SSM over and over again. IE
Kylie said of the Fire Chief example
And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.
Then Kylie repeats this for just about every example IE
And once again, this was NOT an example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble actually answering my question. None of these have been instances of churches being forced to perform same sex marriages.

ect, ect

First you want to ignore those examples and refuse to count them and now you want to count them. I mean I will count them if you want and this will add even more examples of how people are being force to go along with the SSM laws and ideology.

How many times do I have to tell you this?

I specifically asked you to provide examples of churches etc being forced to perform same sex marriage against their wishes. Your examples had nothing to do with that! I was trying to get you to answer the question I asked.

FireDragon76 · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
So what about conscientious objections based on a religious belief. A person is being forced to create marriage vows or a cake to celebrate something that goes against their conscience relating to a belief. Can you imagine the State going around forcing peoiple against their conscience to celebrate something they fundelmentally dont believe. We may as well live in North Korea. I can just see it now forcing people up before the State to read out a script saying how they celebrate and embrace SSM against their will.

It's this sort of rhetoric that I can't take seriously. Comparing policies upholding equality under the law with an authoritarian state is absurd.

VirOptimus · Apr 10, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
It's this sort of rhetoric that I can't take seriously. Comparing policies upholding equality under the law with an authoritarian state is absurd.

There is no need to take the poster seriously.

Just enjoy the humour.

stevevw · Apr 10, 2021

Kylie said:
Continued...

From post 822:

21
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings
I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings

22
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings
“Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings | Snopes.com

From post 833

23
A long serving Fire Chief was sacked for simply writing a book on his life as a fire fighter and happened to mention his beliefs on traditional marriage. Talk about denying free speech. He was awarded damages but the damage had already been done.
Atlanta to pay $1.2 million to former fire chief after firing him, violating his First Amendment freedoms
And you say that no one is denying free speech and its another scare tactic. These example sure tell a different story.

24
Family First stripped of charity status
Simply for their belief about traditional families. “It appears that certain views of marriage and family are now deemed out-of-bounds by the State.
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ

25
Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

26
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
So a women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful. This is clear evidence that people cannot even express their beliefs without being penalized.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

27
A church gets threats that it will be burnt down simply for expressing their belief on a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard

28
I mean even a Superman Comic writer has his editions edited out of history for merely expressing his views supporting traditional marriage. What next.
Superman Comic Writer Edited Out of Series for Support of Traditional Marriage

29
Move against Archbishop Porteous ‘astonishing’ and ‘alarming’: Archbishop Fisher
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP has denounced as “astonishing” and “alarming” the prospect of a Catholic bishop being dragged before a tribunal simply for stating the Catholic view on marriage, suggesting that it would constitute a betrayal of freedoms long valued in Australian democracy.
Move against Archbishop Porteous 'astonishing' and 'alarming': Archbishop Fisher | The Catholic Weekly

30
Similarly, media outlets such as The Guardian Australia openly refused to publish opinions from traditional marriage proponents about the consequences of same-sex marriage. Hence, the outlet adopted the curious view that legislating for same-sex marriage carried no consequences except for those its editors gave their personal blessing. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality

31
Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation
https://xtramagazine.com/power/trinity-western-to-sue-after-being-denied-accreditation-60463

32
Printers refuse to print book simply becuase it supports traditional marriage
“This is the first time that a publisher has refused a book on ideological grounds.
Log into Facebook

33
A doctor was forced out of his potion on the Victorian Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he supports traditional families.
Why because of his support for traditional families in that a child with a mother an father does better
Doctor quits rights board after same-sex row

34
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
The City of Houston even wanted to subpoena priests to check on their sermons to control their speech on what they can and cannot say regarding their marriage. Talk about a denial of free speech and Nazi like behaviour.
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage

35
People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

36
In several European countries state and even church schools must now teach homosexuality amongst the range of options for children. Religious leaders, such as the Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, have been sacked for daring to differ. In Spain same-sex lobby groups want to prosecute a bishop for hate speech after he preached in favour of Catholic teaching on marriage.
Truth, marriage and the threat to religious liberty

37
A society that holds the right of same-sex couples to “marry” on par with that of opposite-sex couples cannot tolerate the presence of those who defend the traditional definition of marriage exclusively. It simply isn’t possible. Whenever we deal with “rights” in this way, we imply that there’s something intrinsic to our humanity at stake. Our rights are, after all, “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator”. If someone denies one of those “rights” – however trivial it may seem – it inevitably appears grossly offensive. It denies part of our humanity.
Sweden to Force Priests to Perform Same-sex Marriage

From post 846:

38
In October 2011 Toowoomba GP Dr David van Gend was forced to appear before Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commission to respond to a complaint about an article that he wrote for The Courier-Mail arguing against any change to marriage laws. The complainant, the gay activist and serial litigator from NSW, Gary Burns, claimed the entire point of that article amounted to vilification simply because he didn't like the doctor's point of view:

The complainant, Mr Burns, did not have to appear before the commission and would suffer no penalty for his non-appearance. His complaint was ultimately withdrawn, but not before the doctor was forced to appear before the Commission and spend a few thousand dollars on legal fees.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

39
As another example, conservative political activist Bernard Gaynor has been the subject of 28 complaints during a period of just 24 months—all lodged by one man, Gary Burns, the Sydney gay rights activist and serial litigator. So far, none of the complaints has been substantiated but Gaynor must head back into costly legal fights that are also part of a strategy to allow anti-free speech laws in one state to be used against those living in another. He has spent more than $50,000 in legal fees fending off the complaints and believes the system encourages anti-free-speech activists such as Burns to lodge complaints. As Gaynor points out, I am winning the legal battles at the moment, but the process is the punishment… There is no risk to the person lodging these complaints.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

I didnt even see the above ones not from post 833. They also had nothing to do with being forced to perform SSM.

See you want the best of both worlds. You restrict the criteria for proving that Christians and even non CHristians are suffering injustices with restrictions of religious belief and freedom of speech relating to SSM laws and continually insist it was only about examples of people being forced to perform SSM in the church. Then you count all the examples including those outside the church to show that I have posted many examples about being forced to perform SSM within the church.

I gave that to you because I'm being generous, and also because I get the feeling that you'd never let it go and the discussion would stagnate if I didn't. But I will point out that it was his own church that said it, not someone outside the church, and no one was forcing he himself to perform the ceremony. It's more a case of he ran one of the churches and his bosses said, here's what we're going to do, and he didn't want it to happen at his church. And since he has to answer to them, and he didn't like it, he resigned.

Thats just one big rationalization to not admit that his church was being forced to perform SSM. You have just refused to state the obvious. Here these are your words with the emphasis on showing Biship Loves church was being forced to perforkm SSM as far as Bishop LOve was concenred.

Kylie said
It's more a case of he ran one of the churches (so he has control over what happens in it) and his bosses said, here's what we're going to do (you have to allow SSM in your churches), and he didn't want it to happen at his church (Bishop Love did not want SSM to be perfromed in his churches). And since he has to answer to them (since he is forced to do what they say), and he didn't like it, he resigned. (since Bishop Love had no choice but to perform SSM in his churches he had to quit otherwise he would be going against his conecience).

I'm sorry but thats just another way of saying Bishop love was being forced to perform SSM.

Probably because you derailed the discussion.

Of course its all my fault. You actually jumped into a conversation I was having with Speedwell about freedom of speech being denied for people expressing their belief about TM. Thats when you made your claim that no one is being denied freedom of speech and the rest has been explained.

Because no one is. People can celebrate the right for a man and a woman to get married as much as they want. No one is stopping them.

So I'm a bit dubious about answering this as you may complain later that I have derailed things. But referring back to the list I posted on those being attacked and losing jobs ect for expressing their beliefs on TM. What about this examples. Surely this shows that some people are not able to celebrate TM in public, on social media ect as the best way to get married.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you can just switch over to that topic and pretend it answers a question I asked about a previous topic.

Like I said you injected yourself into a conversation I was having with Speedwell on freedom of speech.

I know we can discuss more than one issue at a time, and I generally have no problem with that. My problem in this case is that you are trying to change the topic so you can avoid answering a specific question I asked.

No the conversation was not with you but you put yourself into it.

Now, as I've said several times now, I'm happy to move onto a different topic if you'd like. All you have to do is either admit your claim that churches (and so on, you know what I mean and I don't want you thinking I'm trying to sneak an escape clause past you) are being forced to perform same sex weddings against their will, or provide some evidence to back up your claim (and since I'm rapidly becoming less and less generous feeling with you, I'm not going to count the Bishop Love example because 1; it wasn't his church

Yes it was. He was in charge of those churches and what happened in them.

, he was more a guy running one restaurant in a franchise and still has to follow the rules set by his superiors, even if he doesn't like them,

Except the rules he was being forced to follow were against the Constitutional law, the right to belief and to following ones conscience. If you worked for a resturant franchise that was forcing you to breach human rights laws you have a right and in fact a duty to refuse to follow those rules. Just because the resturant, medical clinic or church says you must follow them doesnt make them right.

Bishop Love believed SSM was a sin and allowing it would be commiting a sin in his church. Bishop Love has a right to stop that practice in his church if he believes its a sin. Just because the head of the church says its right doesn't make it truthfully right or right to other believers, even of the same church.

Remember the Episcopal Church is a breakaway Church who are seen as going against the consensus on SSM. SSM issue has been a controversial topi within that church so it is expected that some Bishops would go against the church. Bishop Love is merely aligning himself with the majority of all churches.

and 2: no one forced him to perform the wedding).

They were forcing his churches within his diocese which is actually support for churches themselves being forced. He was put in a position where he had no choice but to allow SSM or else. He suffered as a result of standing his ground. Being forced to go along with SSM cost his his job. You dont have to actually perform the act of SSM to be forced into a situition where you have to perform SSM or else. Its the fact that a person suffers damages because of being forced into a situation where they lose something.

Continued

stevevw · Apr 10, 2021

Kylie said:
No, YOU were discussing it, I was repeatedly asking you to actually answer my question, which you pretty much ignored.

As I have pointed out I was discussing this with Speedwell. You injected yourself into that conversation and chose to engage in it. No one changed the topic of our conversation. You joined in my conversation with Speedwell.

You just can't choose which topic should be discussed and then dismiss my response to it and then use those responses from another conversation as you like by injecting them into our conversation on a completely different topic. You are playing games here.

No. You've got half an example at best.

Like I said you’re playing games.

The Bishop love example I've changed my mind on, for reasons I outlined above. The Oceans Grove example I have already addressed.

Like I said you’re playing games. The example counts and now it doesn’t. I have also explained why they count. Like I said you don’t like my answer so you reject it. You have not proved it doesn’t apply. The only way it can end is to agree to disagree. I am willing to do that to move things on.

Except none of your other examples came even remotely close to showing a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage. (And don;t even think of criticising that I didn't say "and associated entities" here because you know exactly what I mean.)

That’s your opinion and its not necessarily right. We haven’t been through them singularly to ensure you are right. You just dismissed them out of hand.

But we aren't talking about people's religious freedoms, we are talking about your claim that churches are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will and then not being able to provide any good examples of that.

OK I am willing to move on from the other topic for now. But do you agree that freedom of speech is a related topic to religious rights that needs to be considered as part of the overall issue of religious freedoms.

No one is being denied their right to have a traditional marriage.

Here we go again. You claim that this topic is unrelated and then you are willing to discuss it and when we get into it and I present evidence that the denial of the right to express TM is happening you revert back to its an unrelated topic.

I have already given examples on this showing it is happening which you rejected IE the women being sacked for posting support for TM on Facebook, Adoption agenciers forced to close down for placing kids with TM families, Charity losing charity status for promoting TM, Universities losing accreditation for aligning with TM, Church threatened with fire bombing for posting support for TM on a Billboard, Doctors and executives forced from boards and their positions for aligning with TM. Need I say more. How are these situations not showing that people and organisations are being denied the right to support and express TM.

stevevw · Apr 10, 2021

VirOptimus said:
There is no need to take the poster seriously.

Just enjoy the humour.

lol thats all VirOptimus does. He doesnt contribute to the discussion with anything constructive. He just pops in and out of threads with little swipes and jabs demeaning and critizing people. Its like someone joining in on the fight after others have had a go just to make sure the person is taken down. lol

Kylie · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
I didnt even see the above ones not from post 833. They also had nothing to do with being forced to perform SSM.

Which is the trouble. I try to get you to talk about your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform same sex marriages, and you immediately change the subject.

See you want the best of both worlds. You restrict the criteria for proving that Christians and even non CHristians are suffering injustices with restrictions of religious belief and freedom of speech relating to SSM laws and continually insist it was only about examples of people being forced to perform SSM in the church. Then you count all the examples including those outside the church to show that I have posted many examples about being forced to perform SSM within the church.

Let me say it again, and please actually pay attention this time.

I was not asking you to prove that anyone is suffering with restrictions to religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

I was asking you to support your claim that churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

You have CONSTANTLY been avoiding this subject.

Thats just one big rationalization to not admit that his church was being forced to perform SSM. You have just refused to state the obvious. Here these are your words with the emphasis on showing Biship Loves church was being forced to perforkm SSM as far as Bishop LOve was concenred.

Kylie said
It's more a case of he ran one of the churches (so he has control over what happens in it) and his bosses said, here's what we're going to do (you have to allow SSM in your churches), and he didn't want it to happen at his church (Bishop Love did not want SSM to be perfromed in his churches). And since he has to answer to them (since he is forced to do what they say), and he didn't like it, he resigned. (since Bishop Love had no choice but to perform SSM in his churches he had to quit otherwise he would be going against his conecience).

I'm sorry but thats just another way of saying Bishop love was being forced to perform SSM.

His church was not being forced to perform SSM, his church decided to perform them.

What you are claiming is like having a McDonald's franchise owner not wanting to serve the new burger, and then claiming his restaurant is being forced to serve it against his wishes. It's not HIS restaurant, and it wasn't Bishop Love's church, since he was not the one in charge of making the decisions about how it would operate. He is still answerable to his bosses.

(And no, I was not comparing religious beliefs to fast food, in case anyone is going to feel slighted by that.)

Of course its all my fault. You actually jumped into a conversation I was having with Speedwell about freedom of speech being denied for people expressing their belief about TM. Thats when you made your claim that no one is being denied freedom of speech and the rest has been explained.

If you were having that discussion with Speedwell, that's fine, I've got no problem with that.

Of course, that doesn't explain why you thought that posting examples of people being criticised for being anti-SSM counted as examples of people being forced to perform SSM...

So I'm a bit dubious about answering this as you may complain later that I have derailed things. But referring back to the list I posted on those being attacked and losing jobs ect for expressing their beliefs on TM. What about this examples. Surely this shows that some people are not able to celebrate TM in public, on social media ect as the best way to get married.

Then let's stick to the discussion I have been trying to get you to engage in for about 170 posts now. Please show me that people are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will (and don't think of quibblinbg over my phrasing of it again, you know exactly what I mean here).

Like I said you injected yourself into a conversation I was having with Speedwell on freedom of speech.

Irrelevant, since you decided to pretend that your points in that conversation somehow related to the discussion I was trying to have with you when they did not. I don't care what discussions you have with others, I was just trying to get you to respond to what I actually asked you. While you and I are discussing your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will, I would appreciate it if you kept your responses to me on that topic.

No the conversation was not with you but you put yourself into it.

Where? You claimed churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will. In your direct answer to my post where I asked you to support your claim, you listed about twenty examples, and only one of them came close to actually counting as an example. The other 19 or so were totally irrelevant.

Yes it was. He was in charge of those churches and what happened in them. Except the rules he was being forced to follow were against the Constitutional law, the right to belief and to following ones conscience. If you worked for a resturant franchise that was forcing you to breach human rights laws you have a right and in fact a duty to refuse to follow those rules. Just because the resturant, medical clinic or church says you must follow them doesnt make them right.

No he was not. He still had his superiors who had greater control over the churches than he did. He was not the overall boss of those churches.

Bishop Love believed SSM was a sin and allowing it would be commiting a sin in his church. Bishop Love has a right to stop that practice in his church if he believes its a sin. Just because the head of the church says its right doesn't make it truthfully right or right to other believers, even of the same church.

Except he is not the one who gets to make decisions about what is allowed or not in those churches, is he?

Remember the Episcopal Church is a breakaway Church who are seen as going against the consensus on SSM. SSM issue has been a controversial topi within that church so it is expected that some Bishops would go against the church. Bishop Love is merely aligning himself with the majority of all churches. They were forcing his churches within his diocese which is actually support for churches themselves being forced. He was put in a position where he had no choice but to allow SSM or else. He suffered as a result of standing his ground. Being forced to go along with SSM cost his his job. You dont have to actually perform the act of SSM to be forced into a situition where you have to perform SSM or else. Its the fact that a person suffers damages because of being forced into a situation where they lose something.

They were not forcing the churches of others, since they controlled the churches. Let me make that clear - The people who made the decision to allow same sex marriage in those churches were the people who had control of those churches. It just so happens that one of their underlings didn't like the decision that was made.

Kylie · Apr 10, 2021

Swedish P.M. Vows to Force All Priests to Perform Same-Sex Marriages Even If Their Faith Tells Them Not To

stevevw said:
As I have pointed out I was discussing this with Speedwell. You injected yourself into that conversation and chose to engage in it. No one changed the topic of our conversation. You joined in my conversation with Speedwell.

You just can't choose which topic should be discussed and then dismiss my response to it and then use those responses from another conversation as you like by injecting them into our conversation on a completely different topic. You are playing games here.

No I am not. I asked you a direct question in post 798, specifically, to give examples to back up your claim that churches were being forced against their will to perform SSM.

You answered me in post 801, specifically citing MY post, not Speedwell's, and in that post in direct response to my question to you, you gave seventeen examples.

Let me be specific here. You gave seventeen examples of instances you believed were examples that supported your claims that churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will. Out of those, only one of them, the Bishop Love example, came close to actually supporting the claim you made. Let's have a look at the others:

Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings The result was that the minister did not have to perform the SSM. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings The result of this was that it was found that they did not have to perform marriages against their will, and indeed, the city paid them for their lost business. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Swedish P.M. Vows to Force All Priests to Perform Same-Sex Marriages Even If Their Faith Tells Them Not To The PM saying it does not make it law. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
California Raids Christian School, Seeks to Change Its Beliefs or Shut It Down The school was not being required to perform a same sex marriage. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
2 Gay Students Are Suing a Seminary. Here’s Why It Matters. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard This does not show that they were being forced to perform SSM against their will. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Canadian School District Quits Operation Christmas Child Over Gay Marriage Stance No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Christian gallery forced to close for refusing to host same-sex marriage reopens as church They were not forced to perform SSM against their will. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
'It's not okay to vote No': Boss fires worker over same-sex marriage views No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market. No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Beto O’Rourke says churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Robert Jeffress: Supreme Court Has 'Declared Open Season' on Christians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage No case of anyone being forced to perform SSM against their will.

Like I said you’re playing games. The example counts and now it doesn’t. I have also explained why they count. Like I said you don’t like my answer so you reject it. You have not proved it doesn’t apply. The only way it can end is to agree to disagree. I am willing to do that to move things on.

I was being generous earlier, but then you annoyed me with your repeated claims that your examples were relevant when they were not. So I decided to rescind my generousness.

That’s your opinion and its not necessarily right. We haven’t been through them singularly to ensure you are right. You just dismissed them out of hand.

Very well. Please take one of the examples from your post 801 and demonstrate to me how it is a case of someone being forced to perform a same sex marriage against their will.

OK I am willing to move on from the other topic for now. But do you agree that freedom of speech is a related topic to religious rights that needs to be considered as part of the overall issue of religious freedoms.

Let's discuss that after we are done with this current topic of how churches etc are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will.

Here we go again. You claim that this topic is unrelated and then you are willing to discuss it and when we get into it and I present evidence that the denial of the right to express TM is happening you revert back to its an unrelated topic.

I have already given examples on this showing it is happening which you rejected IE the women being sacked for posting support for TM on Facebook, Adoption agenciers forced to close down for placing kids with TM families, Charity losing charity status for promoting TM, Universities losing accreditation for aligning with TM, Church threatened with fire bombing for posting support for TM on a Billboard, Doctors and executives forced from boards and their positions for aligning with TM. Need I say more. How are these situations not showing that people and organisations are being denied the right to support and express TM.

You just don't seem to get it.

My problem is that I asked you to provide examples of situations to support your claim that churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will, and you started going on about freedom of speech instead of actually answering my question! And you are doing it again right now. I am NOT interested in having a discussion with you about freedom of speech right now, not until AFTER we have had our discussion about whether churches are actually being forced against their will to perform same sex marriages.

From now on, each time you bring up the topic of freedom of speech in our conversation, I will ask you not to derail the topic and instead confine your responses to the topic of churches etc being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will.

Speedwell · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
Wait a minute you have just said Mr Phillips beliefs are just another opinion to others who dont hold it and then in the next breath say that opinions are not dealth with by the Consitution.

Beliefs and opinions are ideas inside your head, not speech or action.

Yet Mr Phillips and other peoples beliefs are dealth with by the Constitution. So you are contradicting yourself.

No, beliefs and opinions are not dealt with by the Constitution. You are free to have any ideas in your head and no one can stop you or censure you for them.

Yes but it depends on what that belief is.

No, it doesn't.

If the belief or as you say is not offensive then no one is going to be offended and there is no issue. But if it is percieved as offensive or a denial of a persons rights then its a matter for the consitution.

Beliefs cannot become a matter for the Constitution until they are spoken or acted upon.

So not all beliefs or opinions are equal in rhetoric. Then whats a statement. Whats the difference between a statement and an opinion.

A statement is something you say. An opinion is an idea inside your head.

If that is the case then why is a persons belief or as you say opinion about TM attacked and some people are taken to court or a tribunal for simply expressing that belief or opinion and in some cases win the right to express that belief

Exactly as it should be. In society there is a compromise between the right to speak offensively and the right not to be subject to offensive speech.

hedrick · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
Thats just one big rationalization to not admit that his church was being forced to perform SSM. You have just refused to state the obvious. Here these are your words with the emphasis on showing Biship Loves church was being forced to perforkm SSM as far as Bishop LOve was concenred.

As far as I can tell, Love and his church were not forced to perform SSM. The problem is that Love is a bishop. He was trying to stop churches within his diocese who wanted to do SSM from doing so, even though it's permissible under the rules of the national church. There's no sign that he was being forced to do anything himself.

Even if he was, in terms of freedom there's no difference between a national church that allow SSM forcing its pastors to conform to that than a church that doesn't believe in SSM forcing its pastors to conform to that.

hedrick · Apr 10, 2021

Swedish P.M. Vows to Force All Priests to Perform Same-Sex Marriages Even If Their Faith Tells Them Not To

For the record, I would be opposed to this. The headline is a bit misleading, as he is referring to the Church of Sweden, not all priests in Sweden. If it were truly a State church, the State would actually have the right to make this policy. But it appears that it's not that closely tied, and so it's very unlikely that this would actually happen. Note that this article is from 2017, and it doesn't appear that anything happened.

hedrick · Apr 10, 2021

It's possible to have people advocating bad things even in the service of a good cause. Just at there are people who want to compel others to conform to the traditional policy there are people want to compel others to conform to the liberal policy. The former seem to outnumber the latter. But I believe both are wrong, particularly within churches. I do support public accommodations laws, though I'd draw the limits a bit narrower than some.

stevevw · Apr 10, 2021

Kylie said:
Which is the trouble. I try to get you to talk about your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform same sex marriages, and you immediately change the subject.

You are still playing games. Those posts I am talking about are from my conversation with Speedwell and nothing to do with our discussion. So now your making up stories to prove your point.

Let me say it again, and please actually pay attention this time.

I was not asking you to prove that anyone is suffering with restrictions to religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

I understand that. But you are the one who keeps bringing up the topic on restrictions of freedom of speech. If you don't want to talk about that topic then why did you just link all the examples on it such as the Fire Chief and all the others from number 23 onwards. They are all about freed speech.

I was asking you to support your claim that churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

You have CONSTANTLY been avoiding this subject.

No I havent I posted the first example Bishop LOve for us to debate and then I have posted the second one (Ocean Gove). Like I said I am posting 1 at a time so we can properly debate them.

The problem you are not realizing is that it is you who keeps reverting back to the freedom speech topic. Look down the page and you will see what I mean by you buying into the topic again. You also posted all those examples I gave for the free speech topic in your last post for some reason. Why do that if you dont want to talk about that topic. You posted those as evidence I had posted 40 examples on people being forced to perform SSM. But they have nothing to do with that. THats why its getting confusing as you say you dont want to discuss it but its you who are continually bringing it back into the conversation.

His church was not being forced to perform SSM, his church decided to perform them.

But Bishop Love was responsible for whether that happened in the churches under his responsibility in his diocese. Though the Episcopal church had decided to allow SSM in all its churches Bishop LOve did not want to go along with that in his churches. In otherwords he did not want to be forced to hold SSM by the Episcopal church.

What you are claiming is like having a McDonald's franchise owner not wanting to serve the new burger, and then claiming his restaurant is being forced to serve it against his wishes. It's not HIS restaurant, and it wasn't Bishop Love's church,

It was his diocese to control and determine what happens in it. Its like as you say the manager of a McDonalds restaurant deciding not to serve the Big Mac as it was against his religious belief. The manager of each Macdonalds restaurant has full control. They can choose who works there, choose their own events and advertisment and what specials they may have as each store may have different customer base. I should know I use to be an assistent manager at McDonalds.

since he was not the one in charge of making the decisions about how it would operate. He is still answerable to his bosses.

He has full responsibility for his diocese. The Episcopal may dictate what should happen overall in the Episcopal church as a whole but Bishop LOve decided to go against that and thats why he was disciplined. He made the decision to not have SSM in his diocese despite the Episcopal church saying he should.

It would be like a McDonalds store manager going against McDonalds the national brand and not selling big Macs. He would also be disciplined. I cant beleieve we are argueing over this. The fact is Bishop Love was suppose to allow SSM in his diocese but he refused to and got in trouble for it. Its as simple as that.

(And no, I was not comparing religious beliefs to fast food, in case anyone is going to feel slighted by that.)

Never crossed my mind though I was thinking of a religion that bans cetain meats when I was using the example of banning the big Mac.

If you were having that discussion with Speedwell, that's fine, I've got no problem with that.
Of course, that doesn't explain why you thought that posting examples of people being criticised for being anti-SSM counted as examples of people being forced to perform SSM...

Are you following what has been happening. I was speaking to Speedwell about freedom to express TM. You jumped into that conversation and used an example I linked for Speedwell showing an abuse of freedom to express TM. You said it looks like you have now decided not to presue my claim that people are being forced to perform SSM.

I said no that was about freedom to express TM. You said no one is being denied teh right to express their belief about TM. Thats when I said that is not true and posted the examples. It was you who jumped into the conversation of freedom of speech and it was you who made the claim it wasnt happening. It was you who bought into this and caused the response which was a natural reply considering you claimed it wasnt happening.

You really need to keep up and follow the conversations, not stop people speaking on other matters and stop controlling what people can and cannot say. Especially when you the one buying into to those conversations on other topics. Its created an issue when there didnt need to be one.

Then let's stick to the discussion I have been trying to get you to engage in for about 170 posts now. Please show me that people are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will (and don't think of quibblinbg over my phrasing of it again, you know exactly what I mean here).

I havent worried about that now that its been clarified. We are back to square 1 again. THis is really going in circles. 1) Bishop Love, 2) Ocean Grove. Now 3)

Irrelevant, since you decided to pretend that your points in that conversation somehow related to the discussion I was trying to have with you when they did not.

No those points were about the topic I was having with speedwell. You jumped in remember and commented on my whole post every word. look here is the relevant section that caused all this confusion again for the 5th or 6th time.

Steve said this to speedwell as part of explaining how Christians should not be attacked for just expressing their views about TM because they have religious rights.
stevevw said: ↑
But as a result people are being attacked simply for holding the belief and view of traditional marriage between a man and a women. Now a doctor, minister, priest or citizen only has to mention they believe traditional marriage which is an idea that has been supported by believers and non-believers for 100s of years up until 5 years ago across a whole variety of cultures and times, is increasingly becoming a truth which cannot be spoken.

You jumped into our conversation Kylie said: post #830
They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

So you joined into this other topic and made a claim. What am I suppose to do just ignore it. I thought it was a legit discussion you wanted to joing in on. You went out of your way to reply to my post to Speedwell afterall.

Therefore I replied to your claim that people have freedom of speech about proclaiming TM.
Then Steve replied to your claim which is sort of a natural things to do, no one is complaining its the wrong topic:
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.
And this is where I begin to go into examples
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

So IE and thats when I post all those examples because you usually dispute things so examples help give practcial real life evidence of it happening.
So as you can see
1) I did not post them in relation to the other topic on p[eople being forced to perform SSM.
2) I was not the one who changed the topic as you jumped into mine and speedwells topic.
3) How is this my fault and why should I just avoid speaking about this topic because it happens to not be the one you want me to speak about.
4) on top of all that you then (perhaps mistakenly) take the list I posted for the above topic and use that in our conversation on the topic of people being forced to perform SSM. I think you have got yourself mixed up and hense your confusion.

I don't care what discussions you have with others, I was just trying to get you to respond to what I actually asked you.

You obviously do care because you spent so much time on it and jumped into the conversation. Thats what has caused all this fuss and confusion.

While you and I are discussing your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will, I would appreciate it if you kept your responses to me on that topic.

I have kept them on topic. You changed the topic between us by responding to another topic I was having with Speedwell. Are you saying evenb when you join in to my conversations with others on different topics I must then drop all other topics and keep to your script. Talk about the language police. lol. So now we have straightened that out lets get back to what you want me to talk about lol. :help:

Where? You claimed churches etc were being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will. In your direct answer to my post where I asked you to support your claim, you listed about twenty examples, and only one of them came close to actually counting as an example. The other 19 or so were totally irrelevant.

But thats according to you to your narrow view. You said the 1 didnt count and then you acknowledged it did. So based on this lets see if the others also are relevant examples like I said.

No he was not. He still had his superiors who had greater control over the churches than he did. He was not the overall boss of those churches.

Gee, first you say this example doesnt count, then you acknowledge it does, then you say it miostly does and now your saying it doesnt again. I dont even think you know what is going on. Once again yes his superiors are incharge of the Episcopal church as a whole, setting the policies and beliefs about SSM for example. But each diocese has a Bishop that then takes responsibility for applying those policies and beliefs to the churches he has under them.

Bishop Love was one of those Bishops but he disagreed with the hierarchy of the Episcopal decision to allow SSM and therefore disallowed it within his diocese. He stopped all his priests and the churches they ran form allowing SSM. As a result the Episcopal church hierarchy disciplined him for not going along with allowing SSM in the churches he had control of. Bishop Loves belief was opposed to the Episcopal church on SSM. As he opposed this he was being forced against his belief and conscience to allow SSM in the churches he was responsible for. Therefore he had no choice but to resign and suffer the consequences.

Except he is not the one who gets to make decisions about what is allowed or not in those churches, is he?

Yes he is, not officially but as an individual defying the church he is. Its like a army seargent and his regiment who was given orders from the Captain to attack the enermy in a suicide mission and the seargent choosing to defy his Captain because he disagreed and believed it would kill all the soldiers in his command. Gee why is it so hard to understand.

You think just because the heads of the church have made some rules that 1) they are the right ones and 2) everyone must follow them even if it is against their conscience. Bishop Love could not allow the Episcopal church policy of performing SSM as it went against his conscience. He was a conscientious objector within his own church.

They were not forcing the churches of others, since they controlled the churches. Let me make that clear - The people who made the decision to allow same sex marriage in those churches were the people who had control of those churches. It just so happens that one of their underlings didn't like the decision that was made.

Yes so he defied them and made the decision for the churches he was given to run not to allow SSM in them. Each priest had a choice to perform SSM or not. He decided that no priest was allowed to perform SSM in his diocese. He had the control of that diocese. Look here is the article showing that each Bishop has the control over his diocese.

An episcopal polity is a hierarchical form of church governance ("ecclesiastical polity") in which the chief local authorities are called bishops. Churches with an episcopal polity are governed by bishops, practising their authorities in the dioceses and conferences or synods. Their leadership is both sacramental and constitutional;
Episcopal polity - Wikipedia

I mean now we are back on topic if its going to be this much of a struggle just to establish each example then that is going to take ages.

Speedwell · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
You think just because the heads of the church have made some rules that 1) they are the right ones and 2) everyone must follow them even if it is against their conscience. Bishop Love could not allow the Episcopal church policy of performing SSM as it went against his conscience. He was a conscientious objector within his own church.

The heads of a church made some rules for its members and hierarchy. Membership in a church or it's hierarchy is voluntary. Anyone who does not wish to follow those rules is free to leave. Unless I belong to that church it is none of my business. It is not a freedom of speech issue, not a religious freedom issue, not a constitutional issue.

Hvizsgyak · Apr 10, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
I'm not a Christian and don't adhere to the tenets of your religion. That's why it says "other religion" in my profile.

Alright then, in your religion, does it have sacred laws that one follows? Can someone be of your religion and hold opposing views to some of those sacred laws? In Christianity, there are some sacred laws we all follow, one of them being our one God is the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). No argument from any true Christian. If you don't uphold that law, you are considered a heretic to Christianity. The same applies to the Pope accepting civil unions. Civil unions between gay couples are between the government and the couple. Marriage between gay couples is what the Pope and all Christians should oppose because God created marriage and it was meant to be between a man and a woman only. So no priest, bishop or pope can bless a gay marriage or civil union because in God's eyes it is an abomination.

Kylie · Apr 10, 2021

stevevw said:
You are still playing games. Those posts I am talking about are from my conversation with Speedwell and nothing to do with our discussion. So now your making up stories to prove your point.

No. I asked you specifically to give me examples of churches etc being forced to perform SSM, and you - directly responding to me - gave me a lists of 20 or so, only one of which came close to actually being relevant.

So it was NOT from your responses to Speedwell.

I understand that. But you are the one who keeps bringing up the topic on restrictions of freedom of speech. If you don't want to talk about that topic then why did you just link all the examples on it such as the Fire Chief and all the others from number 23 onwards. They are all about freed speech.

And as per what I said in my last post: We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

No I havent I posted the first example Bishop LOve for us to debate and then I have posted the second one (Ocean Gove). Like I said I am posting 1 at a time so we can properly debate them.

Now you say you are posting them one at a time. So what about all those others that you posted back in post 801?

By the way, I've already addressed both the Bishop Love example and the Oceans Grove example.

The problem you are not realizing is that it is you who keeps reverting back to the freedom speech topic. Look down the page and you will see what I mean by you buying into the topic again. You also posted all those examples I gave for the free speech topic in your last post for some reason. Why do that if you dont want to talk about that topic. You posted those as evidence I had posted 40 examples on people being forced to perform SSM. But they have nothing to do with that. THats why its getting confusing as you say you dont want to discuss it but its you who are continually bringing it back into the conversation.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

But Bishop Love was responsible for whether that happened in the churches under his responsibility in his diocese. Though the Episcopal church had decided to allow SSM in all its churches Bishop LOve did not want to go along with that in his churches. In otherwords he did not want to be forced to hold SSM by the Episcopal church.

He was also responsible for carrying out the instructions that were issued by his superiors.

It was his diocese to control and determine what happens in it. Its like as you say the manager of a McDonalds restaurant deciding not to serve the Big Mac as it was against his religious belief. The manager of each Macdonalds restaurant has full control. They can choose who works there, choose their own events and advertisment and what specials they may have as each store may have different customer base. I should know I use to be an assistent manager at McDonalds.

And if head office told you to put Big Macs on the menu, and you said no because it violated your faith, what do you think Head Office would have done?

He has full responsibility for his diocese. The Episcopal may dictate what should happen overall in the Episcopal church as a whole but Bishop LOve decided to go against that and thats why he was disciplined. He made the decision to not have SSM in his diocese despite the Episcopal church saying he should.

But he doesn't get to run it however he wants while answering to no one. He has the responsibility to carry out the instructions given to him by his superiors, which he refused to do.

It would be like a McDonalds store manager going against McDonalds the national brand and not selling big Macs. He would also be disciplined. I cant beleieve we are argueing over this. The fact is Bishop Love was suppose to allow SSM in his diocese but he refused to and got in trouble for it. Its as simple as that.

That's my point! You are making my point for me.

The McDonald's manager is told to serve Big Macs, Bishop Love was told that SSM was permitted.

The McDonald's manager says no to the Big Macs, despite his superiors telling him to. Bishop Love refused to allow SSM, despite his superiors telling him to.

Head Office takes disciplinary action against the store manager, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church takes disciplinary action against Bishop Love.

If you think it is appropriate for the McDonald's store manager to face discipline, then surely you agree that Bishop Love was also rightfully disciplined for his refusal to follow instructions.

Never crossed my mind though I was thinking of a religion that bans cetain meats when I was using the example of banning the big Mac.

I was covering myself, since I once got a warning over a perceived comparison between religion and pool tables. I was making it clear from the start in this case to avoid a similar incident.

Are you following what has been happening. I was speaking to Speedwell about freedom to express TM. You jumped into that conversation and used an example I linked for Speedwell showing an abuse of freedom to express TM. You said it looks like you have now decided not to presue my claim that people are being forced to perform SSM.

You keep making this claim, yet it would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't started your list of such examples in a post where you were directly responding to me.

I said no that was about freedom to express TM. You said no one is being denied teh right to express their belief about TM. Thats when I said that is not true and posted the examples. It was you who jumped into the conversation of freedom of speech and it was you who made the claim it wasnt happening. It was you who bought into this and caused the response which was a natural reply considering you claimed it wasnt happening.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

You really need to keep up and follow the conversations, not stop people speaking on other matters and stop controlling what people can and cannot say. Especially when you the one buying into to those conversations on other topics. Its created an issue when there didnt need to be one.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

I havent worried about that now that its been clarified. We are back to square 1 again. THis is really going in circles. 1) Bishop Love, 2) Ocean Grove. Now 3)

I have already address Bishop Love and Ocean Grove. They don't count.

No those points were about the topic I was having with speedwell. You jumped in remember and commented on my whole post every word. look here is the relevant section that caused all this confusion again for the 5th or 6th time.

Steve said this to speedwell as part of explaining how Christians should not be attacked for just expressing their views about TM because they have religious rights.
stevevw said: ↑
But as a result people are being attacked simply for holding the belief and view of traditional marriage between a man and a women. Now a doctor, minister, priest or citizen only has to mention they believe traditional marriage which is an idea that has been supported by believers and non-believers for 100s of years up until 5 years ago across a whole variety of cultures and times, is increasingly becoming a truth which cannot be spoken.

You jumped into our conversation Kylie said: post #830
They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

So you joined into this other topic and made a claim. What am I suppose to do just ignore it. I thought it was a legit discussion you wanted to joing in on. You went out of your way to reply to my post to Speedwell afterall.

Therefore I replied to your claim that people have freedom of speech about proclaiming TM.
Then Steve replied to your claim which is sort of a natural things to do, no one is complaining its the wrong topic:
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.
And this is where I begin to go into examples
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

So IE and thats when I post all those examples because you usually dispute things so examples help give practcial real life evidence of it happening.
So as you can see
1) I did not post them in relation to the other topic on p[eople being forced to perform SSM.
2) I was not the one who changed the topic as you jumped into mine and speedwells topic.
3) How is this my fault and why should I just avoid speaking about this topic because it happens to not be the one you want me to speak about.
4) on top of all that you then (perhaps mistakenly) take the list I posted for the above topic and use that in our conversation on the topic of people being forced to perform SSM. I think you have got yourself mixed up and hense your confusion.

That was post 830. However, you started going off topic with me and waffling on about people losing their freedom of speech in post 801, in a direct response to my request that you provide examples of churches etc being force to perform SSM.

Your cries of unfair treatment are not very convincing.

You obviously do care because you spent so much time on it and jumped into the conversation. Thats what has caused all this fuss and confusion. I have kept them on topic. You changed the topic between us by responding to another topic I was having with Speedwell. Are you saying evenb when you join in to my conversations with others on different topics I must then drop all other topics and keep to your script. Talk about the language police. lol. So now we have straightened that out lets get back to what you want me to talk about lol.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

But thats according to you to your narrow view. You said the 1 didnt count and then you acknowledged it did. So based on this lets see if the others also are relevant examples like I said.

I've already covered this. Would you like me to cut and paste what I said to you before?

Gee, first you say this example doesnt count, then you acknowledge it does, then you say it miostly does and now your saying it doesnt again. I dont even think you know what is going on. Once again yes his superiors are incharge of the Episcopal church as a whole, setting the policies and beliefs about SSM for example. But each diocese has a Bishop that then takes responsibility for applying those policies and beliefs to the churches he has under them.

Bishop Love was one of those Bishops but he disagreed with the hierarchy of the Episcopal decision to allow SSM and therefore disallowed it within his diocese. He stopped all his priests and the churches they ran form allowing SSM. As a result the Episcopal church hierarchy disciplined him for not going along with allowing SSM in the churches he had control of. Bishop Loves belief was opposed to the Episcopal church on SSM. As he opposed this he was being forced against his belief and conscience to allow SSM in the churches he was responsible for. Therefore he had no choice but to resign and suffer the consequences

I've already explained this to you. Your example was half an example at best, because it wasn't a church being forced to perform SSM against its will, it was one bishop who didn't want to follow the instructions that his church gave him. Going back to the McDonald's analogy, it's like saying McDonald's doesn't want to serve Big Macs, when it's just one franchise owner who is disagreeing with head office. I was feeling generous at the time and decided to let you have that point, but then you started annoying me with your claims that I had taken points you raised with Speedwell (which I didn't, because you were making those points with me 29 posts BEFORE your discussion about them with Speedwell). Since I have a low tolerance for people who waste my time with transparent attempts to get out of the truth, my generosity was lost and hence I decided that the Bishop Love example didn't cut it as an example supporting your claim.

Yes he is, not officially but as an individual defying the church he is. Its like a army seargent and his regiment who was given orders from the Captain to attack the enermy in a suicide mission and the seargent choosing to defy his Captain because he disagreed and believed it would kill all the soldiers in his command. Gee why is it so hard to understand.

And the sergeant would know that sometimes such orders are required, and that even though a regiment is lost, that sacrifice is what wins the war. And since the sergeant doesn't see the whole picture, he has to trust that his superiors are doing what's best for the overall effort.

You think just because the heads of the church have made some rules that 1) they are the right ones and 2) everyone must follow them even if it is against their conscience. Bishop Love could not allow the Episcopal church policy of performing SSM as it went against his conscience. He was a conscientious objector within his own church.

I wonder if you would make the same argument if it was a church coping flack because they decided they WOULD perform SSM even though official church policy was that SSM was wrong.

Yes so he defied them and made the decision for the churches he was given to run not to allow SSM in them. Each priest had a choice to perform SSM or not. He decided that no priest was allowed to perform SSM in his diocese. He had the control of that diocese. Look here is the article showing that each Bishop has the control over his diocese.

An episcopal polity is a hierarchical form of church governance ("ecclesiastical polity") in which the chief local authorities are called bishops. Churches with an episcopal polity are governed by bishops, practising their authorities in the dioceses and conferences or synods. Their leadership is both sacramental and constitutional;
Episcopal polity - Wikipedia

I mean now we are back on topic if its going to be this much of a struggle just to establish each example then that is going to take ages.

So? Each McDonald's owner has control over his restaurant, but he still has to follow the orders Head Office give. If he decides he no longer wants to follow the rules of the hierarchy, then he's going to have to face the consequences of that. Which he did.

Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

inquisitive

inquisitive

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads