April 28th....A Very Important Day....

[Tammy]

The Supreme Court is going to begin hearing on same-sex marriage cases on April 28th. Depending on their ruling, it will either be a HUGE step in the RIGHT or a HUGE step in the WRONG direction. Here is a very good article about what is at stake:
Dear Churches in America: Prepare to Be Treated Like 1st Century Christians in Rome

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Just as with mixed-race marriages, or church attendance/membership rules, or ministerial hiring policy, NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T AGREE WITH. Period.

No pastors are going to be forced to perform any weddings.
No churches will be forced to allow SSM in the church - proper, not including those that run an on-the-side service of renting these areas out.
No church is going to be denied standing for their stance.

Never have been, never will. At least not as long as the Constitution is still there - and I see no signs of that disappearing anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[Tammy]

I wish I was as confident as you are, Fenny the Fox....I'm afraid the Constitution is going to get mowed down....

 

[Aureus]

haha, 1st century Christians? Really? Let me know when the Government is issuing orders to raid Churches to get their tax money. Oh wait, Churches don't have to pay taxes. What a joke of an article.

 

[Honest Al]

Just as with mixed-race marriages, or church attendance/membership rules, or ministerial hiring policy, NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T AGREE WITH. Period... Never have been, never will. At least not as long as the Constitution is still there - and I see no signs of that disappearing anytime in the foreseeable future.

Maybe I'm not understanding, or am not correctly informed, but what about churches being forced to provide for abortion in their health policies?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I wish I was as confident as you are, Fenny the Fox....I'm afraid the Constitution is going to get mowed down....

And people said the same in regards to mixed-race marriages, too. Pastor's can still deny that too. In fact, a pastor/church can deny any service to any person without question.

The issue to worry about, and that is happening already, is with things like church-run schools, hospitals, etc. Areas where the issue of employment and benefits from a legal perspective clashes with religious teaching. Churches have been forced to compensate for let go staff and such who were homosexual (and other things too, but since that is what the thread got started on a note of...), which is why I pointed out "ministerial hiring policy" from the get go.

If they are not consider part of the ministry - but merely hired musicians, teachers, etc. - it has often been held that they are subject to state/federal enforcement of equal opportunity and non-discrimination clauses that ministerial staff are exempt from.

That issue is not so cut and dry...I'm still iffy on how I stand there.


But as far as actual true attack on the church like he suggests in the OpEd piece, I just don't see it.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Maybe I'm not understanding, or am not correctly informed, but what about churches being forced to provide for abortion in their health policies?

See my last post, I typed it before seeing yours.

Like I said, this gets into issue of non-ministerial staffing/hiring - where the rules of separation break down a bit. I am not real sure where to stand on that one.

They don't have to provide for actual ministerial staff - pastors and clergy and etc etc etc. But may, depending, be require to provide such for other staff hired for non clerical positions - teachers, janitors, whatever.

 

[Honest Al]

...At least not as long as the Constitution is still there - and I see no signs of that disappearing anytime in the foreseeable future.

Do you think I'm wrong when I say that there are many judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court, that do not believe in, or hold to, the Constitution?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Do you think I'm wrong when I say that there are many judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court, that do not believe in, or hold to, the Constitution?

I think there are certainly judges that "disagree with the Constitution", or interpret if far from what it was intended to mean, sure. But that does not mean it is going anywhere, and there are plenty of judges, right up the the Supreme Court, that DO believe in what it is and stands for.

 

[Honest Al]

I think there are certainly judges that "disagree with the Constitution", or interpret if far from what it was intended to mean, sure. But that does not mean it is going anywhere, and there are plenty of judges, right up the the Supreme Court, that DO believe in what it is and stands for.

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but that number on the Supreme Court seems to be about 5-4. Just one small step away from being 4-5. Then what?

 

[sdmsanjose]

And people said the same in regards to mixed-race marriages, too. Pastor's can still deny that too. In fact, a pastor/church can deny any service to any person without question.

Fenny is right. Our Baptist minister refused to marry my son because he and his fiancé did not take his pre-marital course.

No need for paranoia about us becoming 1st century Christians in the USA at this time.

 

[Blue Wren]

Just as with mixed-race marriages, or church attendance/membership rules, or ministerial hiring policy, NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T AGREE WITH. Period.

No pastors are going to be forced to perform any weddings.
No churches will be forced to allow SSM in the church - proper, not including those that run an on-the-side service of renting these areas out.
No church is going to be denied standing for their stance.

Never have been, never will. At least not as long as the Constitution is still there - and I see no signs of that disappearing anytime in the foreseeable future.

The article was so melodramatic & irrational

 

[ranunculus]

Some comments I enjoyed.

This is outrageous and reveals the degree of entitlement and privilege Christians have enjoyed in Western society. If western Christians are going to compare other people getting married or other churches marrying gays to 1st century colosseum martyrdom, then they are only displaying their true vanity. Secondly, many churches support gay marriage and are urging the SCOTUS to do the right thing and approve it including the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church USA.

I am a Christian and I think the whole tax exempt thing makes no sense. Why should clergy pay no tax for their housing, when teachers and social workers must. Not getting to determine whose marriage is legit is a long way from being crucified in the streets of Rome. This article is embarrassing.

The government has NEVER forced any church to marry a couple. Just look at the Roman Catholic church. They refuse to marry couples for many reasons (divorced, non-Catholic) and have never been forced to perform marriages they didn't want to. This article is simply one person banging on his high chair over the fact that he and his ilk no longer get to call the shots anymore.

This is ridiculous. All we want is equality, and for religious persons to follow the law. Stop trying to divide and oppress people, and it will end. Keep trying to oppress and divide people, and use your religion as the excuse, you can hardly complain when your religion becomes the target of ire. Christians should demonstrate love and tolerance, not division and hate. Jesus never said to harass and oppress your fellow citizen, regardless of his sin. In fact, he said the man with the stone best be sin free before he throws it.

Those Christians who are made fearful by fear mongering such as this article are not living by faith. What's more, the premise that the Church will be persecuted because it calls something 'sin' which popular culture calls acceptable, or which civil law calls legal, is not born out in other examples; sex outside of marriage, gambling, greed,,etc.

No one is forcing you to do, think or say anything. If you think homosexuality is a sin, so be it. If you want to quote from Leviticus to condemn gay people, go for it. However, if and when those opposed to your position voice concern or call you out, don't then get all sad and cry that we're persecuting you. Holding a position that's different from yours isn't persecution, it's expressing and opinion. I know that you long for "the good old days" when you could mouth anti-gay vitriol and not face any opposition, but those days are long gone. Welcome to 2015.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Since some want to go back to the good old Days, The vice president should be the first looser and we should start reclassifying some people as only 3/5 of a person (60%).

 

[contratodo]

"And he shall speak pompous words against the most High, and shall persecute the saints of the most High, and intend to change times (April 1st to January 1st instead) and (Gods) laws (Synod on the Family going on now, and these laws getting ready to pass now) {he = Empire of the 3 City States} and the saints shall be given into his hand until a year and times and the dividing of time." Daniel 7:25

 

[essentialsaltes]

Maybe I'm not understanding, or am not correctly informed, but what about churches being forced to provide for abortion in their health policies?

There is an exemption for churches.

"Churches are exempt from the HHS mandate. An exception in the law protects churches from having to provide healthcare coverage for their employees that include contraceptives or abortion-inducing drugs."

 

[TLK Valentine]

If churches can still do this with no civil/legal consequences...

I don't see them being forced to marry homosexuals anytime soon.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

If churches can still do this with no civil/legal consequences...

I don't see them being forced to marry homosexuals anytime soon.

Ah, Beaverton, another “sundown” town in Alabama. I used to live in Cullman but because no one had really ever seen a Jew before, they never forced us to leave. I had to keep a hat on all the time to cover the horns.

 

[tulc]

The Supreme Court is going to begin hearing on same-sex marriage cases on April 28th. Depending on their ruling, it will either be a HUGE step in the RIGHT or a HUGE step in the WRONG direction. Here is a very good article about what is at stake:
Dear Churches in America: Prepare to Be Treated Like 1st Century Christians in Rome

...wouldn't "being more like the first Century Church" be a good thing?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Interplanner]

tulc,
the unstated part of what you are saying is that the Left then is acting like the medieval church which it claims to hate. These things should be resolved by persuasion not by force. I don't mind if the Left is stupid but when they get dangerous I'll be using my 1st amendment rights, not this Obama-Holder-make-the-constitution-what-you-want document.

We are at the end of a few decades of people saying they should not be forced to get married when both genders are involved. So why should people be forced to participate in 'weddings'? The same sex wedding ultimatum-to-be is nothing but anarchism in practice to ruin the West. That's why so many of the cases have nothing to do with love but only with dictatorial power.