SSM and forcing churches to comply

  • Thread starter Thread starter KendraDZ1902
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Publisher said:
Do you think that the government will tell the Catholic church it is required to marry divorced persons simply because they want to get married in the church? I would think THAT would be more feasable an occurance than requiring same sex marriage ceremonies when divorced persons wanting to remarry far out number those same sex couples who want to get married.

Someone yelling “The sky is falling” isn’t a reason to fear.
Click to expand...
But refusing to marry divorced persons is different (and the Church will in fact marry divorced persons if they received a declarartion of nulllity for their 1st marriages. Even if one half of a gay couple were to get a sex change, the Church still wouldn’t officiate their wedding), there’s no “civil rights discrimination” (or “hate speech”) involved with divorce, like there will be with ssm. I do wonder though what will happen once polygamy is allowed (and it will be. There’s absolutely no basis for denying polygamy if same sex marriage is legal. Please tell me if think there is one). Of course, by then the Churches will likely have lost their tax exempt status so it won’t matter if they don’t want to officiate polygamous marriages.

In Christ,
Ellen
 
Publisher said:
Who “forced” them to close their doors? I think they chose to close rather than obey the law…they were not ‘forced’ to close…they made the choice to do so.
Click to expand...
What a proud defense of religious conscience.
 
achmafooma said:
Tell that to the Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC… which had to shut down because they were required by law to adopt to same sex couples.

It’ll start with our charities and nonprofits like it did in those places, then spread from there. Soon enough it’ll be targeted at the church itself. I expect something like a law saying that any religious group that refuses to marry same sex couples is a ‘hate group’ and not tax exempt. And so on.

There isn’t a parallel with the divorce issue. Refusal to recognize divorce and remarriage never got branded as ‘hate’ or labeled as ‘bigotry’.

The First Amendment should protect us. But it didn’t protect our adoption agencies, and it didn’t protect us from the contraception and sterilization and abortofacient mandate. It’s barely worth the parchment it’s written on anymore. Dark times ahead.
Click to expand...
Would this also affect a Catholic or religious business owner that does not support SSM. I’m not sure what the resulting judgement was, but wasn’t it recently where a lesbian couple sued a Catholic photographer (personal business) citing discrimination for refusing to photograph their wedding. (i might be wrong on the details though).
 
NoWings said:
If the Ku Klux Klan, a white Protestant organization, owns a hall and an interracial couple want to rent it and are refused on religious ground (no mixing of two different species), is that a civil rights issue? Are they being discriminated against or is the organization exercising its free expression rights?

It can be murky. If it’s a contract that two parties engage in, like an agreement to rent a facility, then I’d say the church would be in the right, even if I think it’s wrong. However, if it were more than a simple contract, like a Catholic hospital employing a woman who ends up getting married to another woman and they fire her, they’d have a lawsuit on their hands.

That’d be my unofficial guess.
Click to expand...
Skin color isn’t a choice engaging in an act is.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
I have a dear friend who is a Baptist minister. He is worried that if SSM laws are passed that the government would force churches to marry same sex couples. Is that possible? :eek:
Click to expand...
That’s never going to happen… Has the government ever forced the Catholic Church to marry divorced people? The laws are about the legal benefits of marriage, not the religious aspect.
 
ALLGIRLS said:
I believe all churches (like the Catholic Church) that refuse will lose tax exempt status, as they’ll be guilty of “discrimination”. Although gay rights groups will probably “test the waters” by going after small nondenominational independent churches first, and if that succeeds, then go after the Catholic Church and denominations like WELS, LCMS, and Southern Baptist Convention.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. The Catholic Church already discriminates (along with many other churches) in refusing to appoint women ministers. Churches have an exemption to anti-discrimination laws.

Remember when First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs refused to marry an African American couple? What they did was not illegal, because of the church exemption. They later apologised, but they didn’t have to.

The Catholic Church does not have to marry divorced couples; it will get a similar exemption from having to marry same sex couples.

rossum
 
Marie5890 said:
You are right, speaking of churches specifically. Its the broader questions, say, the Knights of Columbus oraganization, if they will be forced to rent their halls to same sex couples against their consciences, that isnt clear.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The LCMS owns a system of colleges. I can see an instance where, if our colleges refuse to provide married couple housing to a same gender couple, that couple could bring a lawsuit against the college and Synod. Additionally, since students receive federally insured loans, the Justice Department could file suit, or the tax exempt status revoked. So, this could effect churches directly.

And let’s be clear; there have been instances in Canada where Catholic priests have been charged with “hate speech” for continuing to teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church in this regard. It will be no more benign here.

Jon
 
rossum said:
I doubt that. ** The Catholic Church already discriminates (along with many other churches) in refusing to appoint women ministers.** Churches have an exemption to anti-discrimination laws.

Remember when First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs refused to marry an African American couple? What they did was not illegal, because of the church exemption. They later apologised, but they didn’t have to.

The Catholic Church does not have to marry divorced couples; it will get a similar exemption from having to marry same sex couples.

rossum
Click to expand...
It is not discrimination, even in a neutral sense of the word. It is the historic teaching of the Church and scripture.

Jon
 
Publisher said:
Do you think that the government will tell the Catholic church it is required to marry divorced persons simply because they want to get married in the church? I would think THAT would be more feasable an occurance than requiring same sex marriage ceremonies when divorced persons wanting to remarry far out number those same sex couples who want to get married.

Someone yelling “The sky is falling” isn’t a reason to fear.
Click to expand...
👍
 
achmafooma said:
The state was compelling religious charities to violate their beliefs…which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. They were forced to choose between violating Catholic moral teachings, or closing down. They chose to close down.

So you’re right, there was another option – but that other option was an even worse violation of our religious liberty. And the officials that passed those laws knew that Catholic charities (at least the faithful ones) would not violate church teaching and would choose to shut down. It was their back-handed way of forcing out the Catholic adoption agencies; give them the impossible choice to either stop being Catholic, or disappear.

I should have been more precise in my wording. They weren’t forced to shut down, but they were certainly forced to stop practicing the Catholic moral teaching. They chose to shut down rather than accept that (and rightfully so). But they should have never been put in that position. The First Amendment is supposed to protect religious individuals and organizations and allow them the free practice of their faith.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Then they should have filed suit with the ACLU if this about obtaining a license application for an adoption agency. Now on the other hand, if they had been accepting federal and state funds and were told they would be “cut off” from any further funding, that’s a horse of a different color.
 
ALLGIRLS said:
But refusing to marry divorced persons is different (and the Church will in fact marry divorced persons if they received a declarartion of nulllity for their 1st marriages. Even if one half of a gay couple were to get a sex change, the Church still wouldn’t officiate their wedding), there’s no “civil rights discrimination” (or “hate speech”) involved with divorce, like there will be with ssm. I do wonder though what will happen once polygamy is allowed (and it will be. There’s absolutely no basis for denying polygamy if same sex marriage is legal. Please tell me if think there is one). Of course, by then the Churches will likely have lost their tax exempt status so it won’t matter if they don’t want to officiate polygamous marriages.

In Christ,
Ellen
Click to expand...
If a couple wanted to get married in the Baptist Church and wanted to have their reception in the church fellowship hall and said to the preacher, “Oh, I need to know where to set up the bar and where would be a good place for the band to set up for dancing?”

I will tell you the preacher would escort said couple to the door, “bar”, “drinking”, “dancing”…not allowed. And you bet your life if the couple tried to sue, the Baptist’s would fight back.

This is the same thing.
 
rossum said:
I doubt that. The Catholic Church already discriminates (along with many other churches) in refusing to appoint women ministers. Churches have an exemption to anti-discrimination laws.

Remember when First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs refused to marry an African American couple? What they did was not illegal, because of the church exemption. They later apologised, but they didn’t have to.

The Catholic Church does not have to marry divorced couples; it will get a similar exemption from having to marry same sex couples.

rossum
Click to expand...
exactly 😃
 
JonNC said:
Not necessarily. The LCMS owns a system of colleges. I can see an instance where, if our colleges refuse to provide married couple housing to a same gender couple, that couple could bring a lawsuit against the college and Synod. Additionally, since students receive federally insured loans, the Justice Department could file suit, or the tax exempt status revoked. So, this could effect churches directly.

And let’s be clear; there have been instances in Canada where Catholic priests have been charged with “hate speech” for continuing to teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church in this regard. It will be no more benign here.

Jon
Click to expand...
and there is the catch. You got that right Jon.
 
Julianna said:
If a couple wanted to get married in the Baptist Church and wanted to have their reception in the church fellowship hall and said to the preacher, “Oh, I need to know where to set up the bar and where would be a good place for the band to set up for dancing?”

I will tell you the preacher would escort said couple to the door, “bar”, “drinking”, “dancing”…not allowed. And you bet your life if the couple tried to sue, the Baptist’s would fight back.

This is the same thing.
Click to expand...
But drinking and dancing arent’t “civil” or “human” rights, which is what ssm propronents are arguing. If it were, then no public or private establishments could prohibit alcohol on their premises, and plenty of them do.

In Christ,
Ellen
 
Julianna said:
and there is the catch. You got that right Jon.
Click to expand...
Yes. Students receive loans, but the SCOTUS said the government could attach strings. Therefore, I can also see a time when church- affiliated colleges and universities that go the route of Hillsdale College and Grove City College. Interestingly, their students get the financial aid they need without the government. I know this by first-hand experience with one of my children.

Jon
 
ALLGIRLS said:
But drinking and dancing arent’t “civil” or “human” rights, which is what ssm propronents are arguing. If it were, then no public or private establishments could prohibit alcohol on their premises, and plenty of them do.

In Christ,
Ellen
Click to expand...
To Baptists, drinking and dancing are a sin, a big one. To Catholic,meh, not really.🤷 But you are correct, we are discussing “civil”, “human” rights.

The government of the United States is not going force this on Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddist et. al, any more than the government is going to take away legally purchased and registered firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top