Freedoms, libertarianism versus the Bible

[createdtoworship]

Since when were pastors compelled by the law to marry a couple that they don't want to? Just because two people can legally marry doesn't mean they can force a church to conduct the ceremony.

That's not true at all. No one is forcing churches to marry any couples they don't wish to. In fact the Supreme Court ruled that such a thing is unconstitutional. Claiming otherwise is nothing but ignorant fearmongering.

Marriage ceremonies are voluntary and not legally required.

again you have no clue about the lawsuits. Thats ok. Just look it up.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

Churches that refuse to perform gay ‘marriages’ may lose insurance coverage

Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law

here a wedding baker had to go to supreme court (I think three lawsuits later) in and out of courts on the issue of refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In mexico they ruled against a company for refusing to take pictures of a homosexual wedding:
US supreme court declines appeal of photographer who refused gay couple

granted US supreme courts are starting to favor with the rights of christians in the last few that is no guarantee of this freedom. Not until like texas there is pastors exception passed by congress.

 

[SkyWriting]

For example a homosexuals right to...

Bringing up this topic is an indicator that one is avoiding pain in their own life and trying to misdirect people (oneself) away from seeing it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Bringing up this topic is an indicator that one is avoiding pain in their own life and trying to misdirect people (oneself) away from seeing it.

sir, instead of laying blame on others, try reading the post right before this one.

 

[SkyWriting]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
Churches that refuse to perform gay ‘marriages’ may lose insurance coverage
Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law

It's true that when you offer a service to the public
you are required to not discriminate. God creates the laws.
Romans 13

Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

 

[SkyWriting]

sir, instead of laying blame on others, try reading the post right before this one.

I happen to be blameless and approve of marriage.
It's very healthy for those interested in it.
(Though it is the #1 cause for divorce.)

 

[Strathos]

First link: You're citing a specific instance where a church was registered as businesses and paid taxes, which is obviously far from the norm. Furthermore, the suit was quickly settled once they reorganized as a religious corporation. Fox just picked up the story and ran with it in an attempt to generate fear and outrage, ignoring the actual facts of the matter.

Hitching Post lawsuit settled by city of Coeur d’Alene

Second link: Scaremongering. No such thing happened.

Third link: Same as first link

Fourth link: A public accommodation, not a church, not protected by the first amendment.

Fifth link: See fourth link.

It's been over 50 years since Loving vs. Virginia and churches are still allowed to refuse to perform interracial marriages if they don't wish to.

 

[SkyWriting]

here a wedding baker had to go to supreme court (I think three lawsuits later) in and out of courts on the issue of refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple:

Services offered to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
The sames goes for blacks, the handicapped, jews, red-heads, and Christians.

1 Timothy 2

 

[createdtoworship]

I happen to be blameless and approve of marriage.
It's very healthy for those interested in it.
(Though it is the #1 cause for divorce.)

funny

 

[grasping the after wind]

Since when were pastors compelled by the law to marry a couple that they don't want to? Just because two people can legally marry doesn't mean they can force a church to conduct the ceremony.

Has that been tested in court?

 

[createdtoworship]

First link: You're citing a specific instance where a church was registered as businesses and paid taxes, which is obviously far from the norm. Furthermore, the suit was quickly settled once they reorganized as a religious corporation. Fox just picked up the story and ran with it in an attempt to generate fear and outrage, ignoring the actual facts of the matter.

Hitching Post lawsuit settled by city of Coeur d’Alene

Second link: Scaremongering. No such thing happened.

Third link: Same as first link

Fourth link: A public accommodation, not a church, not protected by the first amendment.

Fifth link: See fourth link.

It's been over 50 years since Loving vs. Virginia and churches are still allowed to refuse to perform interracial marriages if they don't wish to.

think about it this way, a baker had to go to the supreme court to get cleared to do his bakery the way he wanted, it was a all out nightmare for him. I remember reading about it all through it. Mexico, same thing but did not end up well for the photographer. Point is that this is happening every where. And even if all the cases are ruled in favor of the christian, the point is this......it's not a freedom IF YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO HAVE IT.

 

[SkyWriting]

In Mexico they ruled against a company for refusing to take pictures of a homosexual wedding

That's how God works.

Exodus 22:28
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Services offered to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
The sames goes for blacks, the handicapped, jews, red-heads, and Christians.

1 Timothy 2

So if a church offers the service of marriage to the public then the church would be subject to anti discrimination laws would they not? If not , why not?

 

[SkyWriting]

Since when were pastors compelled by the law to marry a couple that they don't want to? Just because two people can legally marry doesn't mean they can force a church to conduct the ceremony.

Only if the service is offered to the public.

The UK has 9 protected characteristics, set out in the Equality Act 2010. These are:

1. Age
2. Disability
3. Gender reassignment
4. Marriage and civil partnership
5. Pregnancy and maternity
6. Race
7. Religion or belief
8. Sex
9. Sexual orientation

Acts 23:5
And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,
for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's how God works.

Exodus 22:28
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

Don't see how the quote is relevant. Is someone cursing a ruler?

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't see how the quote is relevant. Is someone cursing a ruler?

"Cursing" is used in the genetic form in the quote.

If you'd like clarification:

Ecclesiastes 10:20
Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, nor in your bedroom
curse the rich, for a bird of the air will carry your voice,
or some winged creature tell the matter.

2 Peter 2
10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

Jude 1:8
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams,
defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious one

Acts 23:5
And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,
for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

 

[SkyWriting]

So if a church offers the service of marriage to the public then the church would be subject to anti discrimination laws would they not? If not , why not?

Yes, they are.
There are exceptions for private services not offered to the general public.
But pastors take money...and so then they are offering a service with is subject to local laws regarding services in the community.

 

[grasping the after wind]

"Cursing" is used in the genetic form in the quote.

If you'd like clarification:

Ecclesiastes 10:20
Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, nor in your bedroom
curse the rich, for a bird of the air will carry your voice,
or some winged creature tell the matter.

2 Peter 2
10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

Jude 1:8
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams,
defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious one

Acts 23:5
And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,
for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Again, is someone cursing a ruler here? Generically or otherwise?

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, is someone cursing a ruler here? Generically or otherwise?

Rejecting God's authority, local law.

1 Peter 2:13
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,

John 19:11
Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

 

[SkyWriting]

.....it's not a freedom IF YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO HAVE IT.

Yes, freedoms are decided by the courts.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Rejecting God's authority, local law.

1 Peter 2:13
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,

John 19:11
Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

Are you saying that local law is rejecting God's authority and therefore cursing a ruler? I'm trying to follow your logic but you are not making it easy.