Courts Say Christian Church Not Allowed to Practice Christianity

[RCG Trader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Total nonsense.

The church was not ordered to perform the wedding, just to rent out the facility. As diminished as religious liberty has become under obama, I dare say courts are not yet dictating what churches have to do in religious ceremonies.

This case was of course wrongly decided. It forced the church to implicitly endorse something it found religiously abhorent. The judge acted like it was analogous to renting out an apartment or hotel room. It wasn't. This was a church facility, and they should have been able to decide the purposes it would be used for.

If a group of pagans wanted to use it for an orgy celebrating the goddess gaia, would that have been legally required too? What about if a group of skinheads wanted to stage a conference to promote racism? They have First Amendment rights, don't they?

This.

If they went to courthouse and got turned away, they have a case.

Otherwise this is a private institution offering private services. On the other side of the spectrum, does an escort have to sleep with every client? No. Private business offering a private service.

 

[trendlover]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Otherwise this is a private institution offering private services. On the other side of the spectrum, does an escort have to sleep with every client? No. Private business offering a private service. [/B]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at this link RCG. This link show the judge say they have agreement to "open to public" for tax exemption. So is not the same as escort.

"The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis"

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01...or-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from trendlover:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at this link RCG. This link show the judge say they have agreement to "open to public" for tax exemption. So is not the same as escort.

"The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis"

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01...or-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/

Oh.

Well that, of course, is a very serious problem.

 

[Eight]

Quote from RCG Trader:

It was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in your lifetime, and some used the bible to justify that. Do you agree with them?

I'm white, I wouldn't marry a black woman, the black men would kill me...

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Eight:

I'm white, I wouldn't marry a black woman, the black men would kill me...

That is just plain false.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Total nonsense.

The church was not ordered to perform the wedding, just to rent out the facility. As diminished as religious liberty has become under obama, I dare say courts are not yet dictating what churches have to do in religious ceremonies.

This case was of course wrongly decided. It forced the church to implicitly endorse something it found religiously abhorent. The judge acted like it was analogous to renting out an apartment or hotel room. It wasn't. This was a church facility, and they should have been able to decide the purposes it would be used for.

If a group of pagans wanted to use it for an orgy celebrating the goddess gaia, would that have been legally required too? What about if a group of skinheads wanted to stage a conference to promote racism? They have First Amendment rights, don't they?

Utter twaddle.

Apart from the fact they violated a legal agreement which is reason enough for the Court to find they broke the law, a church performing weddings is not offering a private service per se. It is being permitted to perform a legal undertaking on behalf of the public and of government. As such it certainly should not be free to exercise discrimination in that role.
If churches want to be private organizations conducting their own private services, then they need not get involved with public things of state, such as formally registering marriages under law. Then they can be free to fester their religious intolerances privately in house.

 

[FortuneTeller]

Quote from stu:

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry.
You must mean the same way a Christian church considered marrying black people would be a wedding of abomination.

I would certainly not equate black people (normal) with gay people (perverted) so you are off the mark with this one. Nice try but you failed.

 

[stu]

Quote from FortuneTeller:

I would certainly not equate black people (normal) with gay people (perverted) so you are off the mark with this one. Nice try but you failed.

It doesn't matter what you equate. Discrimination because of a prejudice or bigotry against color/race, sex or age is discrimination, whether or not you personally consider any of them to be perverted or not.