You seem to be very caught up on that, despite the fact that you still posted twenty or so examples in post 801 in direct response to my request you give examples of churches etc being forced to conduct SSM against their will, and only 1 of them came close to actually addressing the issue.
As noted we are still arguing about the 1st one let alone establishing the truth as to whether the others are relevant evidence for people being forced to perform SSM. You claim they are not but we have not even begun to argue that. So this rather presumptious and dimissive of you.
Perhaps the same dismissive attitude about answering my question as to why you included 17 examples about freedom of expression in the 40 odd examples you claim I made about people being forced to perform SSM. I am caught up on this because it would reveal whether are are being deceptive or not.
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.
See once again the dismissive attitude. You want to control the narrative and anything else said is not counted because it doesn’t suit what your agenda.
Why are you asking me to address the bishop Love case when I addressed that particular case 44 posts EARLIER in
post 814?
Because you are wrong and I address you arguement. Look here it is again. Kylie said in post 814
He wasn't the one being forced to perform the marriage though, was he?
Steves counter arguement. His diocese was being forced to perform SSM which contains over 100 churches so this is even more inline with a church being forced to perform SSM.
Kylie said Seems like the problem here was that he was saying, "I don't want to have to perform same sex weddings, and I don't want anyone else to either."
Steves counter arguement. Bishop Love did not want his diocese to have to or (be forced) to perfom same sex weddings. So he refused to go along with the Episcopal churches policy on SSM.
Kylie said
It seems like it's a case of no one is saying he has to perform them,
Steves counter arguement. As stated Bishop LOve was not being forced but his churches were which is more in line with my claim. As Bishop Love was responsible for what happened in his church he was the only onne who could stop SSM happening in his churches. Bishop Love felt that SSM was a sin so to allow it in his churches would be against his conscience.
Kylie said but he isn't allowed to stop others from doing them.
Steves counter arguement. Yes he is. As mentioned the Bishop is the highest rank and they have the authority to make changes within their diocese. Therefore Bishop Love did have the authority to stop SSM happening in his churches and in fact his changes could not be undone by the Episcopal church heads until he resigned which shows how much great his authority was.
This has already been addressed and you would have read this already so to just deny these important facts shows your disregard for facts and makes me wonder if we can ever determine the truth of this matter.
No they aren't. I've addressed both cases and neither of them properly supports your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform SSM against their will.
Yet I have posted more updated facts about the examples and you have not addressed these new facts which shows you are willing to claim you are right on this matter based on limited evidence. This shows you cannot be trusted to debate things properly.
And all other arguments aside, they don't support your claim because neither of them involved them being forced to a same sex marriage.
Ah here's the give away. So you acknowledge my arguemnets but don't want to address them because perhaps because you know they have merit. So now you want to dismiss them and try a new angle. That angle is that they were not really forced because to be forced means they had to actually do the act.
Well I am sorry to say that this arguemnet doesn't work either. Being forced doesn't mean you have to actually do the act your being forced to do. The dictionary meaning of 'Force' is
coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
So just being coerced and compelled to do an act is enough to be forced without actually doing the act. That is exactly what happened to these people. They were put in a position where they had no choice to go along or suffer consequences. If they went to court the charge would be that they were being forced to perform SSM and awared damages. That is exactly what has happened in some cases that were lucky enough to win like the Hitching Post example and were awarded damages.
If you disagree, please show me that Bishop Love was forced to perform a same sex marriage when he didn't want to. Please show me that a same sex marriage took place at Oceans Grove when they didn't want to.
As stated you dont have to actually perform SSM to be forced. If you are forced into a corner and have no choice to perform SSM and you choose to suffer the consequences which can be to lose your job or business then you were being forced to perform SSM. That is how the courts see it and why they paid damages.
Was the same sex marriage performed there after all that? No.
It doesnt matter they were still being forced and suffered as a consequence. If they were not being forced then why did some get compensation.
Then how was anyone in a higher position that was able to overrule him?
There was no one in a higher position that could overrule him. Bishops have the highest authority in their own Diocese. The only thing they could do was find that Bishop Love was wrong to make the change and deny SSM in his diocese. But they could not change things back until he resigned.
You'll have to speak to the people who actually overruled him, since I am not an expert on these matters and they are.
I am not an expert either but its easy to see that Bishop Love had the right to deny SSM as his own Church had not changed their own rules on marriage. The offical rules were that marriage was still between a man and women. So Bishop LOve was actually right and the church was wrong. He was doing the right thing not just by his own church but by the truth of the gospel. He should not have been put in that position and forced to make his churches perform SSM as it was a sin and against his conscience.
Why is this church required to fit into the beliefs of the other churches that they broke away from?
They are not just as Bishop Love is not required to go along with his own Churches policy on marriage.
First Amendment says the government won't pass any law against the free expression of religion. It wasn't the government taking action against Love, it was the church. So this doesn't count.
The church was changing their policy on marriage according to the governments or rather States position. The Episcopal Church only changed its policy allowing SSM in states that allowed SSM. So it was actually the government dictating terms that the church was applying.
For example if a private organisation changed its policies to reflect the States laws and then an employee was denied their right to deny SSM this is still a constitutional issue where the employee has the right to follow their conscience or belief. The same for Bishop Love despite his employer being a church. The State doesn’t always prosecute the individual. IT can often be an organisation or individual or couple that do it through a legal rep.
This seems like you are just trying to rehash your first point, a tactic you've used before when you've tried to pass off one example twice. It's not going to work.
Once again you bring up another objection to avoid dealing with the facts. So you are saying that the Bishop and the McDonald manager’s position and authority are the same and there’s no difference.
I was talking about the list you started in post 801.
It doesn’t matter there was no mention of free speech in post 801 either. Yet you brought it up and were willing to speak about the topic several times. Then you changed your mind again and said the free speech topic was irrelevant after you were the one who bought into that topic.
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 stock standard answer when you have no argument or accountability. Anyway I will concede and let’s get on with debating the first topic.
