Re: Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Religious Liberty

by TerryRC Sun May 24, 2009 9:40 am

Perhaps this is your idea of a REAL republican, willy:

Stimulus funds to repair Texas Governor's Mansion

After all, he agrees with you about abortion, guns, god and gays. Who cares if he is a hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, the dems are no better, really.

by TerryRC Sun May 24, 2009 10:38 am

Should we, our church, have to accept a married same-sex couple as members of our church? Should we be able to excommunicate anyone?

Churches can, and some do, refuse to marry people of color, foreigners, people with disabilities, etc. While it is not an emphasized feature of most organized churches' doctrine, the very nature of a church is to discriminate in the classic sense of the word --- to choose a distinct position and distinguish themselves from others.

Go for it.

There is no legal basis or precedent by which a church or pastor could be forced to perform a marriage that violated the tenets of their religion. Anti-gay rights groups are seeking to justify their bigotry by adding language guarding against such non-existent "threats" to personal liberty (theirs, of course) to legislation codifying the basic human rights of others.

In other words, this is much ado about nothing.

by **Stephanie** Sun May 24, 2009 1:52 pm

Terry,

So the minister of a small Baptist church has the right to refuse to marry a homosexual couple in his capacity as a Baptist minister but, if the same Baptist minister also owns rental property he cannot refuse to rent to the same homosexual couple? Is that your position?

by SamCogar Mon May 25, 2009 5:30 am

But Stephanie, that would be an Authoritarian position.

by TerryRC Mon May 25, 2009 5:41 am

So the minister of a small Baptist church has the right to refuse to marry a homosexual couple in his capacity as a Baptist minister but, if the same Baptist minister also owns rental property he cannot refuse to rent to the same homosexual couple? Is that your position?

A church is a private club. A rental property is not.

A church is a non-profit organization. A business is not.

Got any more apples and oranges to compare?

Sam, I see your post is filled with substance, as usual.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 25, 2009 9:14 am

How do you figure rental property isn't private property when it is held by an individual, Terry? It is still the same individual making personal choices.

by SamCogar Mon May 25, 2009 12:49 pm

TerryRC wrote: A church is a non-profit organization.

Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Religious Liberty - Page 3 33948

I wish I had just 1% of the money in my bank account as a few of those non-profit churches have in theirs.

.

by SamCogar Mon May 25, 2009 12:51 pm

Stephanie wrote:How do you figure rental property isn't private property when it is held by an individual, Terry? It is still the same individual making personal choices.

TRC will figure up anything just to CHA.

.

by Aaron Mon May 25, 2009 1:02 pm

SamCogar wrote:
TerryRC wrote: A church is a non-profit organization.

I wish I had just 1% of the money in my bank account as a few of those non-profit churches have in theirs.

.

I saw this church north of Cincinnati Sam. They call this the King of Kings Statue. How many hungry people do you reckon this would have fed?

http://www.solidrockchurch.org/king_ofkings.php

by **SheikBen** Mon May 25, 2009 6:17 pm

Hi Aaron,

While I'm not one for the giant statue, I notice that the church sponsors an orphanage in Brazil and a crisis pregnancy home.

So while better choices may have been made, apparently some actually are.

by SamCogar Tue May 26, 2009 5:39 am

There are and have been dozens of Televangelists who have/had Offices staffed with 10 to 30+ people whose only job was to open up the mail and take the checks and Money Orders out of the envelopes.

Life is good in America.

Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Religious Liberty - Page 3 197570

,

by Aaron Tue May 26, 2009 7:20 am

SheikBen wrote:Hi Aaron,

While I'm not one for the giant statue, I notice that the church sponsors an orphanage in Brazil and a crisis pregnancy home.

So while better choices may have been made, apparently some actually are.

I wonder how many years of sponsorship the cost of the statue would have sponsored.

by Cato Tue May 26, 2009 8:54 am

TerryRC wrote:Perhaps this is your idea of a REAL republican, willy:

Stimulus funds to repair Texas Governor's Mansion

After all, he agrees with you about abortion, guns, god and gays. Who cares if he is a hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, the dems are no better, really.

No, if he took Stimulus money he's just another hypocritial jerk living off the sweat of others.

by ziggy Tue May 26, 2009 11:49 am

SamCogar wrote:There are and have been dozens of Televangelists who have/had Offices staffed with 10 to 30+ people whose only job was to open up the mail and take the checks and Money Orders out of the envelopes.

Life is good in America.

,

It is even better than that. One TV evangelist, I forget which one, promised personal prayers for financial contributors who sent a check along with their "prayer cards". So where did those thousands of prayer cards end up? In a dumpster behind a bank. Yep, that "special address" for contributors desiring personal prayers was the televangelist's bank!

by **SheikBen** Tue May 26, 2009 12:41 pm

Aaron,

I'm not disagreeing that the statue funds could have been better spent, but is it not true of all of us that our spending could be wiser?

by TerryRC Thu May 28, 2009 1:37 pm

How do you figure rental property isn't private property when it is held by an individual, Terry? It is still the same individual making personal choices.

You are comparing a private organization to a public business.

Apples and oranges.

TRC will figure up anything just to CHA.

Sam. Fuck off.

by **Stephanie** Thu May 28, 2009 3:19 pm

Terry,

I feel like you're pulling stuff out of your butt here to fit your views. If a person in his or her capacity as a minister can refuse to provide goods or services to someone, why can't he or she do likewise in their private life if what they are doing is living their religious conviction?
If the minister can refuse to marry a gay couple, why can't he refuse to rent to them? If the individual can't, can the church? Plenty of churches and religious organizations have property they rent. Can Shiloh Baptist Church refuse to rent its hall out to a gay couple for their wedding reception? Can churches with real estate holdings refuse to rent to people the church wouldn't admit as a member?

I posted an article about this "movement" by a group of blacks in this country to patronize only black owned businesses. Why isn't that discrimination in your view? If it isn't, would it be discriminatory if Keli refused to patronize gay owned businesses? Why do some people deserve this extra protection?

by SamCogar Fri May 29, 2009 4:31 am

TerryRC wrote: You are comparing a private organization to a public business.

Sam. Fuck off.

The only public business that has ever existed are all Co-Ops.

All other businesses are either government managed or privately owned and may or may not be accessible to the general public.

Private organizations such as manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors are primarily inaccessible to the general public, meaning ....... the general citizenery is denied the ability to purchase goods and/or services from said entities. And one being black, yellow or blue, .... a fag, female, queer or senior citizen, ..... it makes no difference, one is still denied said.

MERCY, there sure are a lot of clueless and ignorant individuals. Public education sure has been a failure in the past 35 years. Even with its attempt at Sex Education.

"In" or "on" is what they should be teaching, "off" won't get it. So maybe "off" is a pseudo-reference that means a form of birth control, ......... who knows. Remedial Classes in English for College entrants don't seem to be helping either.

.

by Aaron Fri May 29, 2009 7:02 am

SheikBen wrote:Aaron,

I'm not disagreeing that the statue funds could have been better spent, but is it not true of all of us that our spending could be wiser?

Sorry Mike, it's been a long week.

Yes, we could all spend wiser.

But when I see stuff like this, the image I get is of Jesus reeking havoc on the Pharisees in the church for not doing his fathers business.

Somehow I don't think he would be any happier with the churches of today then he was then.

by Aaron Fri May 29, 2009 7:03 am

TerryRC wrote:How do you figure rental property isn't private property when it is held by an individual, Terry? It is still the same individual making personal choices.

You are comparing a private organization to a public business.

Apples and oranges.

TRC will figure up anything just to CHA.

Sam. Fuck off.

Why don't you tone down the language Terry. That's uncalled for.

by TerryRC Sat May 30, 2009 9:11 am

Why don't you tone down the language Terry. That's uncalled for.

What no free speech?

Sam is allowed to insult my job and anything else that comes into his mind.

Look at what I responded to. A typical post where Sam didn't address my argument, he just made a personal attack, instead.

When I do it, it is uncalled for, though.

How typical.

I feel like you're pulling stuff out of your butt here to fit your views. If a person in his or her capacity as a minister can refuse to provide goods or services to someone, why can't he or she do likewise in their private life if what they are doing is living their religious conviction?
If the minister can refuse to marry a gay couple, why can't he refuse to rent to them? If the individual can't, can the church? Plenty of churches and religious organizations have property they rent. Can Shiloh Baptist Church refuse to rent its hall out to a gay couple for their wedding reception? Can churches with real estate holdings refuse to rent to people the church wouldn't admit as a member?

Steph, a private organization, which a church most certainly is, is not the same as a public business.

Why can't you see that. A private organization CAN discriminate. A public business is subject to different laws.

Address that before you accuse me of "pulling stuff out of my butt".

I posted an article about this "movement" by a group of blacks in this country to patronize only black owned businesses. Why isn't that discrimination in your view? If it isn't, would it be discriminatory if Keli refused to patronize gay owned businesses? Why do some people deserve this extra protection?

Consumers have that luxury, businesses and providers of services to not, for the reason I pointed out to willy - it would allow people to get together and drive the "undesirables" out of the town (or county or state, or...) by refusing them goods and services. Tacit segregation.

Don't say that isn't possible. A brief review of US history, alone, will show me right.

by Aaron Sat May 30, 2009 10:11 am

TerryRC wrote:Why don't you tone down the language Terry. That's uncalled for.

What no free speech?

Sam is allowed to insult my job and anything else that comes into his mind.

Look at what I responded to. A typical post where Sam didn't address my argument, he just made a personal attack, instead.

When I do it, it is uncalled for, though.

How typical.

I feel like you're pulling stuff out of your butt here to fit your views. If a person in his or her capacity as a minister can refuse to provide goods or services to someone, why can't he or she do likewise in their private life if what they are doing is living their religious conviction?
If the minister can refuse to marry a gay couple, why can't he refuse to rent to them? If the individual can't, can the church? Plenty of churches and religious organizations have property they rent. Can Shiloh Baptist Church refuse to rent its hall out to a gay couple for their wedding reception? Can churches with real estate holdings refuse to rent to people the church wouldn't admit as a member?

And you respond in kind, with as much verbosity and personal animosity as Sam post and nothing is ever said to either of you.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with you crossing the line and making a statement that was uncalled for. Had you not crossed the line and kept your comment to your normal personal insults, I wouldn't have said anything.

by TerryRC Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:55 am

And you respond in kind, with as much verbosity and personal animosity as Sam post and nothing is ever said to either of you.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with you crossing the line and making a statement that was uncalled for. Had you not crossed the line and kept your comment to your normal personal insults, I wouldn't have said anything.

Really. Show me where I go to the extremes that Sam does.

I'll say what the FUCK I like. If you don't like it, ban me.

Then you all can get back to your little conservative stroke fest uninterrupted by anyone that doesn't lean quite as right.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:11 am

TerryRC wrote:And you respond in kind, with as much verbosity and personal animosity as Sam post and nothing is ever said to either of you.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with you crossing the line and making a statement that was uncalled for. Had you not crossed the line and kept your comment to your normal personal insults, I wouldn't have said anything.

Really. Show me where I go to the extremes that Sam does.

I'll say what the FUCK I like. If you don't like it, ban me.

Then you all can get back to your little conservative stroke fest uninterrupted by anyone that doesn't lean quite as right.

I can say that what TerryRC says is Gospel truth--absolutely.

by Aaron Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:48 am

First, I don't consider myself conservative.

And you have every right to say whatever you want so long as you understand that when your wrong or out of line, you'll be called out.

As you were here.

So say what you will but bear in mind that if I don't like it, I'll say so.

I have a tendancy to speak my mind.

And just so you know, your response above is that of a little kid who got smacked down in front of his friends by his mother.

It makes me wonder two things.

First, I wonder if you were a spoiled brat and second, when't the temper tantrum start?