Ministers threatened with arrest

[Galloism]

You have some serious misconceptions about what limits churches have under US law.

Nothing prevents a church from charging fees for certain services.

It seems to vary state by state. Still, even disregarding that, this was a for-profit industry, and not a church, which is (at least legally) a nonprofit religious institution.

Quite, but nonprofits can charge fees and show a profit.

That's just not the case here.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

...so the enemy is the Rebublicans? I dunno, your vague paranoid bullshit seems to be throwing off my deductive reasoning.

No. It's more the whole system, down to the Constitution I think the US still has enough Christians that if they were organized well enough and protested Arab-Spring style they could enact some positive change.

I'm sorry, your point still seems ludicrous. Are you saying that the Constitution is anti-Christian? Or are you just saying that America isn't exclusively a Christian nation with Christian laws and that's a bad thing?

[Kelinfort]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now how is it being violated?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Right there. Congress cannot force Christianity to recognize gay marriage, or force Christians to perform gay marriages. It says so, right there, in front of your face.

Whoa there Constitutional Lawyer, slow down. So, you're saying, their free exercise is being inhibited because they cannot express their views through their business? That seems like a massive legal stretch in terms of precedent and actual proof, considering that could apply to any number of beliefs concerning discrimination.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

...so the enemy is the Rebublicans? I dunno, your vague paranoid bullshit seems to be throwing off my deductive reasoning.

No. It's more the whole system, down to the Constitution I think the US still has enough Christians that if they were organized well enough and protested Arab-Spring style they could enact some positive change.

Positive change to do what, exactly? Gain even more dominance over the national discourse? Regain the small amount of privilege lost over the past few decades when a series of Supreme Court decisions started reflecting the idea that maybe it wasn't such a great idea to shove a specific belief system down the collective throats of America? Once again allow official promotion of Christian holidays and beliefs, above and beyond a couple of Christian holidays already being federal holidays?

You poor, poor oppressed practitioners of the dominant religion in our culture. How do you get by in the face of the overwhelming privileges and advantages that you have every single fucking step of the way as you make it through life?

[The Flood]

There is a difference between allowing gay marriages and forcing gay marriages.
This is a case where the government is forcing a religious establishment to do something against its character. If they choose to bless gay marriages, then fine. The law allows for that. They cannot be forced to perform gay marriages. That is against the principle of "separation of church and state".

Wrong.
They are running this as a business, not a church. The business offers a service that they have been authorized to perform on behalf of the state.

No, wrong. It is a religious institute offering a religious service, that happens to be recognized by the state.

If the state doesn't like it, then stop recognizing marriage. At least, until the population protests this in outrage.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It seems to vary state by state. Still, even disregarding that, this was a for-profit industry, and not a church, which is (at least legally) a nonprofit religious institution.

Quite, but nonprofits can charge fees and show a profit.

That's just not the case here.

Right.

Because, as I have repeatedly stated, this is a for-profit business. Not a nonprofit.

[Empire of Narnia]

No. It's more the whole system, down to the Constitution I think the US still has enough Christians that if they were organized well enough and protested Arab-Spring style they could enact some positive change.

I'm sorry, your point still seems ludicrous. Are you saying that the Constitution is anti-Christian? Or are you just saying that America isn't exclusively a Christian nation with Christian laws and that's a bad thing?

The US was once neutral towards religion, but is State-Atheist now. If enough people peacefully protested for long enough we could get an actual Christian America, or maybe a reverse of the Supreme Court decision to allow succession.

[Kelinfort]

I'm sorry, your point still seems ludicrous. Are you saying that the Constitution is anti-Christian? Or are you just saying that America isn't exclusively a Christian nation with Christian laws and that's a bad thing?

The US was once neutral towards religion, but is State-Atheist now. If enough people peacefully protested for long enough we could get an actual Christian America, or maybe a reverse of the Supreme Court decision to allow succession.

State Atheist?! Have you ever been to Europe?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now how is it being violated?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Right there. Congress cannot force Christianity to recognize gay marriage, or force Christians to perform gay marriages. It says so, right there, in front of your face.

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who's not even against secular gay marriages. That alone should be enough to tip you off that there's something wrong with what you're advocating.

The specific ministers cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages in a Christian ceremony, that is true. Here's the thing, though: As a for-profit business, they absolutely have to make allowances for same-sex couples. Whether that involves coming up with a non-Christian ceremony that they're willing to perform, or taking on someone who has no issue with performing the ceremony on an as-needed basis, they don't get to pick and choose the couples they're going to be providing services to as part of a business, at least not based on those particular standards.

[The Flood]

Right there. Congress cannot force Christianity to recognize gay marriage, or force Christians to perform gay marriages. It says so, right there, in front of your face.

Whoa there Constitutional Lawyer, slow down. So, you're saying, their free exercise is being inhibited because they cannot express their views through their business? That seems like a massive legal stretch in terms of precedent and actual proof, considering that could apply to any number of beliefs concerning discrimination.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Business owners have every right to express their religious views through their businesses. Businesses are not public property, there is absolutely no requirement that they be secular, and why should there be? That's state enforced atheism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wrong.
They are running this as a business, not a church. The business offers a service that they have been authorized to perform on behalf of the state.

No, wrong. It is a religious institute offering a religious service, that happens to be recognized by the state.

If the state doesn't like it, then stop recognizing marriage. At least, until the population protests this in outrage.

It is a business. If they are charging a fee, and filing taxes as a business, then they are a business, regardless of the religious trappings. They could no more discriminate against gay couples than a gay person running that as a business could discriminate against straight couples. If they want to be protected from that, then they need to reorganize themselves as a church rather than a private enterprise.

[-Ebola-]

Care to cite the part of the constitution that says business regulations that happen to conflict with someone's religious beliefs are illegal?

The part where it guarantees religious freedom.

The Constitution does not say that religious beliefs are a free pass to ignore laws you don't like, just that laws have to be applied equally to people of all religions. The law in this case is an anti-discrimination law that applies to all businesses, regardless of the owner's religion.

It doesn't help your cause when you don't quote the specific passage that you think supports your position. My guess is because you are relying on your personal interpretation of the Constitution rather than what is explicitly stated in the text. Your personal interpretation is not "the only correct answer" or "what the constitution actually says." It's just your opinion.

[Kelinfort]

Whoa there Constitutional Lawyer, slow down. So, you're saying, their free exercise is being inhibited because they cannot express their views through their business? That seems like a massive legal stretch in terms of precedent and actual proof, considering that could apply to any number of beliefs concerning discrimination.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Business owners have every right to express their religious views through their businesses. Businesses are not public property, there is absolutely no requirement that they be secular, and why should there be? That's state enforced atheism.

Then get the precedent. You have none. Hobby Lobby, for instance, won because it was a deeply held religious belief, only excluded three types of contraception, and was a very narrow ruling.

Overturning anti-discrimination laws would take a political earthquake and a very reactionary court. Neither of which are going to happen, I must add.

As for the "state atheism" bullshit you throw in at the end, preventing discrimination is not "state atheism". If you particapate in the market, you follow the rules. If you are not part of it, you may do as you please.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, wrong. It is a religious institute offering a religious service, that happens to be recognized by the state.

If the state doesn't like it, then stop recognizing marriage. At least, until the population protests this in outrage.

It is a business. If they are charging a fee, and filing taxes as a business, then they are a business, regardless of the religious trappings. They could no more discriminate against gay couples than a gay person running that as a business could discriminate against straight couples. If they want to be protected from that, then they need to reorganize themselves as a church rather than a private enterprise.

businesses, because they are run by individuals and for individual profits (and because they represent individual investments), should be allowed to choose their customers.

its in line with property rights and freedom. Everyone should have the right to control his own time, property, investment, and labor.

The state shouldn't go around order people to perform forced labor with the threat of fines and jail times. It's not cool.

As I've said, people have the right to factor in non-economic considerations for their business and some of these could be religious. Every business is an extension of the individual dreams, personalities, aspirations, and ideals of their respective owners. The law needs to make room for that and create a truly free and expressive society.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

I'm sorry, your point still seems ludicrous. Are you saying that the Constitution is anti-Christian? Or are you just saying that America isn't exclusively a Christian nation with Christian laws and that's a bad thing?

1)The US was once neutral towards religion, 2)but is State-Atheist now. 3)If enough people peacefully protested for long enough we could get an actual Christian America, 4) or maybe a reverse of the Supreme Court decision to allow succession.

Oh, man. Where to begin? Let's divide it up for easier viewing.
1) Accurate. The US was neutral towards religion at its founding, not in favor of any one religion.
2) Now, there are two ways you could mean this. The first is that you mean it's secular, as in it makes laws without the assumption of any religion. The other is that the state forces people not to follow religion, which would be patently false and intellectually dishonest of you to say.
3) An America where the government was officially Christian would require an America where all non-believers were driven out or forcibly converted. Now, can we think of somewhere else in the world where countries follow one monotheistic Abrahamic religion and drive out or force into conversion all followers of different faiths? How's that working out for the Middle East, again? Not well? Hm, it's almost like theocracy is never ever ever a good thing.
4) Feel free to leave. Move somewhere else with all your theocracy pals, because an America where nobody wants one religion favored over another in terms of law would be a good America.

[The Flood]

Right there. Congress cannot force Christianity to recognize gay marriage, or force Christians to perform gay marriages. It says so, right there, in front of your face.
Seriously, you're arguing with someone who's not even against secular gay marriages. That alone should be enough to tip you off that there's something wrong with what you're advocating.

The specific ministers cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages in a Christian ceremony, that is true. Here's the thing, though: As a for-profit business, they absolutely have to make allowances for same-sex couples. Whether that involves coming up with a non-Christian ceremony that they're willing to perform, or taking on someone who has no issue with performing the ceremony on an as-needed basis, they don't get to pick and choose the couples they're going to be providing services to as part of a business, at least not based on those particular standards.

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

[Infected Mushroom]

The specific ministers cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages in a Christian ceremony, that is true. Here's the thing, though: As a for-profit business, they absolutely have to make allowances for same-sex couples. Whether that involves coming up with a non-Christian ceremony that they're willing to perform, or taking on someone who has no issue with performing the ceremony on an as-needed basis, they don't get to pick and choose the couples they're going to be providing services to as part of a business, at least not based on those particular standards.

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

this makes sense

they never said they sold gay weddings, in fact, they put up a large disclaimer so that there is no misrepresentation on this point.

[Kelinfort]

The specific ministers cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages in a Christian ceremony, that is true. Here's the thing, though: As a for-profit business, they absolutely have to make allowances for same-sex couples. Whether that involves coming up with a non-Christian ceremony that they're willing to perform, or taking on someone who has no issue with performing the ceremony on an as-needed basis, they don't get to pick and choose the couples they're going to be providing services to as part of a business, at least not based on those particular standards.

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

[Galloism]

It is a business. If they are charging a fee, and filing taxes as a business, then they are a business, regardless of the religious trappings. They could no more discriminate against gay couples than a gay person running that as a business could discriminate against straight couples. If they want to be protected from that, then they need to reorganize themselves as a church rather than a private enterprise.

businesses, because they are run by individuals and for individual profits (and because they represent individual investments), should be allowed to choose their customers.

its in line with property rights and freedom. Everyone should have the right to control his own time, property, investment, and labor.

The state shouldn't go around order people to perform forced labor with the threat of fines and jail times. It's not cool.

As I've said, people have the right to factor in non-economic considerations for their business and some of these could be religious. Every business is an extension of the individual dreams, personalities, aspirations, and ideals of their respective owners. The law needs to make room for that and create a truly free and expressive society.

My irony meter just exploded and leveled most of a city block.

[Infected Mushroom]

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

they never offered to sell it

they offered to provide Christian weddings in accordance with the tenets of their religion, and even a cursory understanding of the beliefs of their denomination tells you that they consider certain forms of weddings appropriately Christian and others not so.

[Kelinfort]

It is a business. If they are charging a fee, and filing taxes as a business, then they are a business, regardless of the religious trappings. They could no more discriminate against gay couples than a gay person running that as a business could discriminate against straight couples. If they want to be protected from that, then they need to reorganize themselves as a church rather than a private enterprise.

businesses, because they are run by individuals and for individual profits (and because they represent individual investments), should be allowed to choose their customers.

its in line with property rights and freedom. Everyone should have the right to control his own time, property, investment, and labor.

The state shouldn't go around order people to perform forced labor with the threat of fines and jail times. It's not cool.

As I've said, people have the right to factor in non-economic considerations for their business and some of these could be religious. Every business is an extension of the individual dreams, personalities, aspirations, and ideals of their respective owners. The law needs to make room for that and create a truly free and expressive society.

Good. Now get out of my hotel. Everyone who wants to spend a night in my hotel needs to wear a suit. At all times.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

To play both sides for a moment, I'd say that the ministers would probably feel a bit disingenuous giving a Christian wedding to two men who aren't, in the ministers' eyes, Christians, much as a barber would feel disingenuous giving a haircut to a bald man. The simile falls apart here, of course, because the barber believes the man to be bald and the man believes himself to have hair, but in general it's the same. They're asking for a service that the business doesn't think think could actually be given to them. (It's still discrimination and they should give the bald man his haircut, though.)

[Kelinfort]

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

they never offered to sell it

they offered to provide Christian weddings in accordance with the tenets of their religion, and even a cursory understanding of the beliefs of their denomination tells you that they consider certain forms of weddings appropriately Christian and others not so.

"Their denomination"

Some denominations allow same sex marriage. It's called Christian marriage, correct? And are those denominations not Christian? They never said it was "Southern Baptist Marriage."

Besides, they'd have a much more valid legal argument in that case, if more semantic based.

[The Flood]

A Christian chapel cannot be expected to perform secular weddings, don't be absurd. If you insist on treating marriage as a consumer good, then fine. The product being sold is Christian weddings. They don't offer secular weddings. Therefor a gay couple is asking for something they don't sell. You dig?

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

They can't provide a Christian wedding for a gay couple, because Christianity does not have gay weddings. That's like asking the chapel to provide people with reincarnation, it's not part of Christian doctrine.

[Kelinfort]

But if they pay for a Christian wedding, they have to provide it. Period.

They can't provide a Christian wedding for a gay couple, because Christianity does not have gay weddings. That's like asking the chapel to provide people with reincarnation, it's not part of Christian doctrine.

Some denominations do, in fact, provide same sex marriage.

So are they not Christian, Scotty?