Pew report shows American Christian numbers in decline

[bhsmte]

That was a wedding chapel in Idaho, I believe. I saw the article last night.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

Yep, that is a for profit wedding chapel owned by the two ministers, who advertised via their website to the general public.

This was not operated like a church. A church can refuse to marry whoever they wish. These guys did end up getting an exemption though, if I am not mistaken.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The problem with that is what you are basically saying is if you are a person or group who holds to Christian morals and values... Don't expect to make a profit.

No. What it means is if you are a Christian and run a business you have to follow the same laws as every other business owner in the country--you don't get a special exemption from the law because you are a Christian.

The US, being a secular nation is to safeguard and guarantee freedom and liberty for all citizens, not just those who identify as Christian. And just so nobody says anything stupid, no, this isn't persecution, this is expecting people to abide by the law.

If one group can be discriminated against by a business, then all groups can. Legislating anti-discrimination laws for some but not others is a fundamental breech of the guarantee of civil liberties. If you're cool with the idea that non-Christian business owners can discriminate against Christians, or non-straight business owners discriminating against straight people, then I suppose you could have some sort of point. But consider me skeptical of that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[A New Dawn]

They opened it up to the public. They are then subject to the same laws that businesses are subject to because they are acting as a business. I imagine the income they brought in from that area was even taxable as a business and not tax exempt as a church.

It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.

 

[Theway]

........

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.

There were not a church, you are mistaken.

If they were set up and operated like a church, they could refuse whoever they chose to refuse. This is reality.

 

[LoAmmi]

It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.

When they open up a secondary business, that business is not a religious institution. If a Church opened up a grocery store, they would be required to follow all the laws of business that their Church wouldn't be required to follow. Having a place to rent for the public makes them a business not a religious institution.

 

[A New Dawn]

There were not a church, you are mistaken.

If they were set up and operated like a church, they could refuse whoever they chose to refuse. This is reality.

But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.

The problem is, when they change the laws, they don't notify everyone who needs to make a change in their status. I guess they just sit in wait for them to do what they always did, and then penalize them for it.

 

[LoAmmi]

But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.

The problem is, when they change the laws, they don't notify everyone who needs to make a change in their status. I guess they just sit in wait for them to do what they always did, and then penalize them for it.

Who's fault is it if they are ignorant of the law?

 

[bhsmte]

But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.

The problem is, when they change the laws, they don't notify everyone who needs to make a change in their status. I guess they just sit in wait for them to do what they always did, and then penalize them for it.

Then they need to get a better accountant.

 

[A New Dawn]

When they open up a secondary business, that business is not a religious institution. If a Church opened up a grocery store, they would be required to follow all the laws of business that their Church wouldn't be required to follow. Having a place to rent for the public makes them a business not a religious institution.

You are comparing a retreat center to a grocery store? Way to go, there, with the relevancy. What is hard to understand that the laws were changed after they received their first tax-exempt status, making it obsolete and needing replaced? Now they are the correct tax-exempt status, and, yes, they are a church.

And it's really sad that they need to close their boardwalk down to the public just because of the results of the law being changed regarding this topic.

 

[LoAmmi]

You are comparing a retreat center to a grocery store? Way to go, there, with the relevancy.

Seems identical to me when run as a business. Way to go, there, with thinking they're different then I guess.

 

[A New Dawn]

Seems identical to me when run as a business.

You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.

 

[LoAmmi]

You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.

I can promise you one of those rules isn't "No Black People".

 

[bhsmte]

You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.

Nope, because those rules of use apply to EVERYONE, not just a select group of people.

I bet, public parks can't refuse to let gays visit.

 

[A New Dawn]

Nope, because those rules of use apply to EVERYONE, not just a select group of people.

I bet, public parks can't refuse to let gays visit.

Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.

 

[LoAmmi]

Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.

Most non-discrimination laws don't say you can't discriminate period. So, your point is moot unless you think "no black people" is a fine rule to be had.

 

[bhsmte]

Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.

And the rules apply to EVERYONE.

If I own a restaurant, I can make it a policy people have to wear ties and a suit jacket and these rules would likely keep some people out, but they would apply equally, to everyone.

 

[A New Dawn]

And the rules apply to EVERYONE.

If I own a restaurant, I can make it a policy people have to wear ties and a suit jacket and these rules would likely keep some people out, but they would apply equally, to everyone.

That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.

Oh, the church that rented the facility was also required to be the ones to sign off on the marriage certificate as official?

 

[bhsmte]

That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.

If it was an actual Methodist church, they could have refused. The for profit chapel that advertised on a website to the public, was not a Methodist church.

Deal with it, it is reality, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.