LGBT Agenda & 1st Amend.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

From Article:

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate ?against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.?

?It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,? Staver said. ?This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.?

Thoughts?

Why would they want to get married in a church in the first place? Also isn’t it standard for anyone to get married in a church that at least 1 of them has ties to?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why would they want to get married in a church in the first place? Also isn’t it standard for anyone to get married in a church that at least 1 of them has ties to?[/quote]

  1. To force acceptance. 2) Yes that is the normal standard.

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

These are two different things in light of Natural Law, alas the foundation of our infrastructure as a nation.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

These are two different things in light of Natural Law, alas the foundation of our infrastructure as a nation.[/quote]

Can you explain this a bit more?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

It still doesn’t matter, a church is still just a building (pic related a church converted to a club). A wedding does not require a religious connotation, you can get married in a non-church building.

You don’t need a priest either, just a marriage officiant:

Marriage is not a religious institution.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

Interesting. I hadn’t realized how “libertarian” your views are on this point. I think I saw Rand Paul arguing something similar. Eh, given the history of the US, I’ll have to disagree but I understand where you are coming from.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

These are two different things in light of Natural Law, alas the foundation of our infrastructure as a nation.[/quote]

Can you explain this a bit more?[/quote]

What color a man is and his sexuality are two different things. One pertains to his end the other is an accident to his being. Discriminating against a man based on an accident (something that has nothing to do with his substance) is absolutely wrong.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage is not a religious institution.

[/quote]

Yes it is.

Regards,

BC

P.S. I didn’t want to waste your time with non-sequitors so I just gave my conclusion.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage is not a religious institution.

[/quote]

Yes it is.

Regards,

BC

P.S. I didn’t want to waste your time with non-sequitors so I just gave my conclusion.[/quote]

It’s not a non-sequitar it’s completely to the point.

People were getting married long before any of the abrahamic religions were founded. Like a thousand years before. Do some research.

According to wiki marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history. Recorded history started in the 4th millenium BC.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
To further my above point, government - local, state and federal - has simply got too big for its britches, struttin’ around thinking it can and should fix every damn “problem” under the sun.

In all fairness we the citizens are the enablers. We elect the chumps that play with their power like it was a kid’s toy firetruck.[/quote]

x2