Pastor rejects gay man in wedding party

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosalinda

Guest
Tamara Bourgeois, a Canadian, is prepared to file a lawsuit for discrimination because her Baptist pastor, Glenn Tomlinson, told her during a telephone conversation last Tuesday, that he did not want a homosexual man to be part of her wedding party. Tamara asked her pastor if there would be a problem and she is “furious” with his response that indeed it would be a problem because it would send “the wrong message”. “As a Baptist chruch, we believe that the scripture is God’s word, without error.” he said in a local newspaper interview. It wouldn’t be a problem however if the gay man chose to be an observer in the pew. The couple has since left the Baptist church for another one without such scruples and plans to wed in June 2007. They had only been attending the Baptist church for a few months and Tamara openly declared her support for ssm in the article.

It is hard to understand why she deliberately put her pastor on the spot, in the first place, and felt it necessary to disclose the sexual inclination of one of her friends: unless, of course, she had an agenda. :hmmm:

Given the recent debacle in British Columbia,where the Knights of Columbus ended up being fined for bruising the feelings of a pair of lesbians who suffered the humiliation of a hall cancellation, Tamara Bourgeois and her fiance, Jerry Condie, should have no problem dragging this poor Christian pastor before the Human Rights Commission. :bowdown2:
 
These agendized groups consider political power the only god worth worshipping. So they will abuse and insult everyone they can in order to get an advantage over them. It is despicable.

CDL
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
Tamara Bourgeois, a Canadian, is prepared to file a lawsuit for discrimination because her Baptist pastor, Glenn Tomlinson, told her during a telephone conversation last Tuesday, that he did not want a homosexual man to be part of her wedding party. Tamara asked her pastor if there would be a problem and she is “furious” with his response that indeed it would be a problem because it would send “the wrong message”. “As a Baptist chruch, we believe that the scripture is God’s word, without error.” he said in a local newspaper interview. It wouldn’t be a problem however if the gay man chose to be an observer in the pew. **The couple has since left the Baptist church for another one without such scruples **and plans to wed in June 2007. They had only been attending the Baptist church for a few months and Tamara openly declared her support for ssm in the article.

It is hard to understand why she deliberately put her pastor on the spot, in the first place, and felt it necessary to disclose the sexual inclination of one of her friends: unless, of course, she had an agenda. :hmmm:

Given the recent debacle in British Columbia,where the Knights of Columbus ended up being fined for bruising the feelings of a pair of lesbians who suffered the humiliation of a hall cancellation, Tamara Bourgeois and her fiance, Jerry Condie, should have no problem dragging this poor Christian pastor before the Human Rights Commission. :bowdown2:
Click to expand...
I like the comment about going to a church without such scruples. The fewer scruples the better, right? 😃

I agree with you, that it was stupid of her to ask the pastor. Unless the gentleman had a “Hi, I’m gay!” button on his rainbow-colored tux, I don’t think the pastor would have made any issue during the wedding had he been there.
 
40.png
GregoryPalamas:
These agendized groups consider political power the only god worth worshipping. So they will abuse and insult everyone they can in order to get an advantage over them. It is despicable.

CDL
Click to expand...
And the Churches aren’t concerned with political power or influence, it’s only the gays and the Liberals and the ACLU that care about such un-Godly matters. :ehh:
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
And the Churches aren’t concerned with political power or influence, it’s only the gays and the Liberals and the ACLU that care about such un-Godly matters. :ehh:
Click to expand...
Aint he cute?👋

CDL
 
40.png
GregoryPalamas:
Aint he cute?👋

CDL
Click to expand...
Very, as a matter of fact. And still firmly beleiving all authority figures are corruptible on every side because of historical proof.
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
And the Churches aren’t concerned with political power or influence, it’s only the gays and the Liberals and the ACLU that care about such un-Godly matters. :ehh:
Click to expand...
Religious organizations can lose their tax free status by endorsing a particular candidate.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Religious organizations can lose their tax free status by endorsing a particular candidate.
Click to expand...
There are ways around laws, if you know what you’re doing. Non-public political involvement does not mean it isn’t there. If they sponsor an anti-abortion rally, it may have a spiritual side, but it is also trying to influence the secular, political world.
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
There are ways around laws, if you know what you’re doing. Non-public political involvement does not mean it isn’t there. If they sponsor an anti-abortion rally, it may have a spiritual side, but it is also trying to influence the secular, political world.
Click to expand...
With regards to your first point on political power, there may be historical examples of individuals within churches seeking such power and influence for wrong reasons. So? There’s no such thing as a church full of perfect people and it’s illogical and cynical to judge the motives of the Church as a whole by the misdeeds of individuals, no matter how many there are.
My second point would be, what is the purpose of religion if it has no impact on the rest of the world? What good is mass on Sunday if you hate your fellow man Monday? What good does it do to hear the words of Christ if you will not feed the hungry or clothe the naked because of them? Religion should impact every other aspect of your life. Muslims know this and live it. Devout Christians know this as well and are accused of ulterior motives by people like you who don’t think it through deeply enough.
With regards to this news story, it seems pretty obvious the woman was looking to make a big scene out of this situation because most people find out where a church stands on key issues before joining and planning a wedding in said church.
And while the pastor did not use the pastoral approach in this situation, i definitely think he is within his rights to refuse to be in a situation where his participation might imply not only his personal condoning of homosexual acts, but also his church’s endorsement. Being a pastor is not something to be taken lightly, and i think it’s admirable that this man seems to take that responsibility very seriously. 👍
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
There are ways around laws, if you know what you’re doing. Non-public political involvement does not mean it isn’t there. If they sponsor an anti-abortion rally, it may have a spiritual side, but it is also trying to influence the secular, political world.
Click to expand...
It is only political because of the pro baby killers in office and the democratic party making it a major point of theirs.

It would be different if the priest, during his sermon, came out and said it was a sin to vote for a certain candidate by name. Even when it’s true.
 
40.png
dafalax:
With regards to your first point on political power, there may be historical examples of individuals within churches seeking such power and influence for wrong reasons. So? There’s no such thing as a church full of perfect people and it’s illogical and cynical to judge the motives of the Church as a whole by the misdeeds of individuals, no matter how many there are.
My second point would be, what is the purpose of religion if it has no impact on the rest of the world? What good is mass on Sunday if you hate your fellow man Monday? What good does it do to hear the words of Christ if you will not feed the hungry or clothe the naked because of them? Religion should impact every other aspect of your life. Muslims know this and live it. Devout Christians know this as well and are accused of ulterior motives by people like you who don’t think it through deeply enough.
Click to expand...
Boy, have you got me pegged. Because I said that this was a criticism of the Church since no one else does it. Yep, that’s what I said, all right.
 
40.png
dafalax:
With regards to your first point on political power, there may be historical examples of individuals within churches seeking such power and influence for wrong reasons. So? There’s no such thing as a church full of perfect people and it’s illogical and cynical to judge the motives of the Church as a whole by the misdeeds of individuals, no matter how many there are.

Actions and attitudes of individuals define the character of a church. The people ARE the church.

My second point would be, what is the purpose of religion if it has no impact on the rest of the world? What good is mass on Sunday if you hate your fellow man Monday? What good does it do to hear the words of Christ if you will not feed the hungry or clothe the naked because of them? Religion should impact every other aspect of your life. Muslims know this and live it. Devout Christians know this as well and are accused of ulterior motives by people like you who don’t think it through deeply enough.

Just how can you know how deeply another person “thinks things through”? You talk a good game about charity and humility, but in the next breath advocate exculsion and hate.

With regards to this news story, it seems pretty obvious the woman was looking to make a big scene out of this situation

Doesn’t seem at all “obvious” to me.

because most people find out where a church stands on key issues before joining and planning a wedding in said church.
And while the pastor did not use the pastoral approach in this situation, i definitely think he is within his rights to refuse to be in a situation where his participation might imply not only his personal condoning of homosexual acts, but also his church’s endorsement.

It is quite a stretch to propose that “homosexual acts” will occur during this wedding.

Now, it has happened that “sexual acts” have occurred at receptions.

Being a pastor is not something to be taken lightly, and i think it’s admirable that this man seems to take that responsibility very seriously.

I am not convinced that there is any “admirable” intention here. My interpretation of the situation is that this pastor indulged in an opportunity to be biased and antagonisitc. That is, IF homosexual persons fit the catagory of “the least of these”.

👍
Click to expand...
 
40.png
coyote:
The actions and attitudes of the members of a church do NOT define the Catholic church. That’s why so many American Catholics are irritated by it; it isn’t a democracy.
I never advocated hate anywhere in my post. As for exclusion, it is sometimes necessary to exclude unrepentant sinners. St. Paul advocates that in the Bible. Take it up with him. With regards to the other poster, i found his comments short sighted and called them as such. If you can find depth in them, please elaborate.
If you don’t see anything fishy about the way the woman in this story broached this whole wedding deal in a church she’d barely been in, i can’t help you.
It is silly to claim that homosexual acts would have to occur in the wedding in order for endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle to be implied. The actions and attitudes of the wedding party members will reflect on this pastor and his church. You yourself made this your first argument.
Finally, this pastor is not being bigoted and antagonistic. Normally if you want to antagonize someone, you seek them out. This pastor was sought. The woman who asked the pastor this question is more the antagonist since she tried to pressure the man into a situation he didn’t feel comfortable with. He just let her know where he stood. If he wanted to be a bigoted jerk, he would follow her homosexual friend around with placards and jeers. Kind of the way the news media does to Christians when they disagree with them on points like homosexual acts.
 
In order for this action to be just, a thorough background check needs to be done on every person in any wedding party.

You never know what illicit dirt can be discovered on individuals that will be “officially” standing up at a wedding. Horrors! And hypochrisy.
 
My pastor felt there wouldn’t be a problem in his church, as long as the individual in question, didn’t present himself for reception of communion without first going to confession. He regrets the Baptist pastor made such an error in judgement; nevertheless, he feels the pastor has the right to set the rules in his church.

Given the firestorm of controversy Canada has experienced in the last three years, with the lines of demarcation clearly drawn between the pro and con forces for ssm, Tamara either led Pastor Glen into her carefully planned trap or she is incredibly ill- informed. However, given the fact she claims to have a lot of “gay” friends and supports ssm the former scenario is more likely than the latter. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing she entered the church. :bigyikes:
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
Given the recent debacle in British Columbia,where the Knights of Columbus ended up being fined for bruising the feelings of a pair of lesbians who suffered the humiliation of a hall cancellation
Click to expand...
I thought they were fined for damages resulting from breech of contract.
 
Timidity, According to the lawyer for the lesbian couple, Barbara Findley, in her own words:
“Basically the Knights were punished for bad manners, not discrimination,” Findlay emphasized. “We won the battle. We’re nowhere near winning the war.”
Click to expand...
read more: lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/051202a.html

Paragraph 123 of the Human Rights tribunal decision:
The Panel does not view this case as a simple breach of contract, although the Panel acknowledges that the complainants could have pursued the issue as such…
Click to expand...
Paragraph 121 of the decision:
In the circumstances, the Panel has decided that an award of $1,000 to each of Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect pursuant to s. 37(2)(d)(iii) of the *Code *is appropriate.
Click to expand...
Read the full text of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal between

Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn and

Knights of Columbus, Sandra Hauser and Elmer Lazar

bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf
 
I don’t really see what the big deal is unless he insists that all wedding parter members be well devout Christians living the Christian lifestyle. It’s not like she was asking for him to preach the sermon/serve communion!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top