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.
Then why did you include the 17 examples from my conversations with speedwell in posts
833 and
#846 well after post 801 using those examples to show that I had posted over 40 examples about people being forced to perform SSM which they had nothing to do with that topic.
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.
Then why did you say the following in post 830 well after your post 801.
Kylie said
#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.
And that’s when I posted those examples on free speech in post
#833 to you claim that people have the freedom of speech well after post 801.
Now you say you are posting them one at a time. So what about all those others that you posted back in post 801?
I told you I was posting the examples 1 at a time in post
#858
So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case.
By the way, I've already addressed both the Bishop Love example and the Oceans Grove example.
OK so that’s 2 examples that support my case. Next is the Itching post example.
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
He was also responsible for carrying out the instructions that were issued by his superiors.
Actually Bishop LOve had the authority not to make changes as he seen fit as a Bishop.
1) A Episcopal Church Bishop has the authority to change things in his own diocese. Bishops are seen as decendents of Christs Apostles authority wise so there is no higher. In fact the changes Bishop Love made in disallowing SSM in his diocese could not be reversed by the Church heads and remained in place until he resigned. That ‘shows how much authority Bishops have in the Episcopal Church.
2) The Church Hierarchy were wrong in trying to force Bishop Love to perform SSM as their own Book of Prayer forbid it and the church had not yet changed their policy at that stage in the Book of Prayer. So he was actually the only one following the proper Church rules. They still haven’t changed it. The new ruling to allow SSM was called
B012.
B012 turns upside down over 2000 years of Church teaching regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and is in direct contradiction of The Episcopal Church’s “official teaching” on marriage as outlined in the rubrics and the opening preface of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer, as well as the Catechism (BCP 861).
The rubric in the marriage service states: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.”(BCP 422). None of this was changed in the Book of Common Prayer at the 79th General Convention; therefore they remain in effect as the official teaching of the Church regarding marriage.
The marriage canon of the Diocese of Albany, recognizes and upholds this traditional understanding of marriage, and as a result prohibits its clergy from officiating at or allowing any marriage to take place on any church property other than that between a man and woman. Thus, to carry out the dictates of B012 would be a direct violation of our own diocesan canons. 4
https://albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/...11/Pastoral-Letter-Regarding-B012-Nov2018.pdf
3) The Episcopal Church was also wrong outside their church as 99% of Churches disagreed with allowing SSM so they were a breakaway church that was considered outside the Christian faith so Bishop Loves belief and conscience that allowing SSM was a sin is correct and therefore he is justified to apply it.
4) Bishop Love had a right to follow his conscience and belief not just because he had a right to follow his conscience and freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment regardless of who was right or wrong inthis matter.
5) Any comparisons to McDonalds managers is not the same as there is no religious rights involved and Bishop LOve unlike a business manager has authority to make changes to his disocese.
I realize that we have debated this several times in this post so I will now refer to this answer for other similar replies.
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?
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.
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.
Yes he does. As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.
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.
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.
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.
Yes I directly responded to you in the next post 833 after you jumped into mine and speedwells discussion on free speech and made your claim that no one was denied freed speech well after post 801 and there was no mention of freed speech before this between posts 801 and post 830. Check it for yourself in post 833.
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 get that but check out post 833 about 1/3 of the way down where you say
“They have freedom of speech “. Then I post my list of those denied freedom of speech. You reckon this happened at post 801 but it didn’t. You are getting confused and losing track. You even commented further on the free speech topic in reply to my post 830 in posts 853 and 854.
On top of this after all that discussion on free speech which you intiated between us you then say in post 859, Kylie said:
In post 833, you said: "But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal."
You clearly state that the laws are making traditional marriage illegal.
And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.
So while we were still debating the issue of free speech you decide to not speak about it anymnore because its not relevant. Yet you iniated this and continued to debate it. Thats why I say you are controlling the narrative and dictating what we speak about which is frustrating.
What you should have said is "enough on the free speech topic lets get back to the other topic now".
So to say we should only speak about what you say church entities who are forced to peform SSM is hypocritical as you are quite willing to speak about free speech issues in all these other posts.
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.
Yeah same as above lol.
I am going to split this post as its quite long.
regards Steve