Heterosexual Rights & Issues

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I think forcing churches to host gay marriage ceremonies is certainly a step way, way too far; an attempt to guarantee freedom from discrimination for gays ending up in the demolition of freedom of religion.

Oh my fuck.

That doesn't happen anywhere. Except one place, where only the state church is required to.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not so sure about the 'most' part of this.

Cultural pressure. People don't want to admit it. The people I hang with tend to be a bit more open-minded about ice cream experimentation, though.

Just so you know, if you hold my kids love of pistachio ice cream against him, we are going to have problems.

[Tekania]

That does not appear to be forcing churches to host gay marriage ceremonies, rather requiring that if they lease out facilities to the general public that they cannot discriminate. There is no requirement for a church to lease out to the general public.

It means if a church rents its facilities for hetero marriages it therefore must do it for gay marriages. Since renting out to weddings is as much financial lifeblood of a church as the collection plate, such a stipulation would be making a church choose between either going out of business (well, not technically going out of business being as a church isn't really a business, but no longer being able to pay for its expenses) or leasing to gay weddings.

Then it would need to reduce its expenses. There is little reason why a church should not be able to function on tithes, if they cannot, then it is poorly run and should close down.

[Patridam]

I think forcing churches to host gay marriage ceremonies is certainly a step way, way too far; an attempt to guarantee freedom from discrimination for gays ending up in the demolition of freedom of religion.

Oh my fuck.

*gasp* Such language!

That doesn't happen anywhere. Except one place, where only the state church is required to.

So.. never. What a pointless discussion.

Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. Many, if not most churches, will rent their facilities to members of the public who want to use the church building to get married. Most churches will generally ensure that the people who are using the facilities are not going to use them in a way that is inconsistent with the church’s religious faith and mission. But the State of Washington is considering forcing churches to open their sanctuaries to same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.

I couldn't care less about whether gays can marry or cannot. Marriage, as in the certificate, is a legal partnership defined by the government, they can do with it what. What a church recognizes as marriage should have no bearing on the validity of a government-defined partnership, but it should at least be able to maintain its own definition inside its own building and not be forced to let a major perceived sin go on upon its property.

[The Qeiiam Galaxy]

All of these things have happened in the last few years or so, and it's obvious that this is only going to get worse for heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage.

Oh yes, those poor heterosexuals, being forced to watch how gays are allowed to marry eachother. Woe is they!

[Steamtopia]

Oh my fuck.

*gasp* Such language!

That doesn't happen anywhere. Except one place, where only the state church is required to.

So.. never. What a pointless discussion.

I couldn't care less about whether gays can marry or cannot. Marriage, as in the certificate, is a legal partnership defined by the government, they can do with it what. What a church recognizes as marriage should have no bearing on the validity of a government-defined partnership, but it should at least be able to maintain its own definition inside its own building and not be forced to let a major perceived sin go on upon its property.

If a church doesn't want to operate under business laws, it shouldn't operate as a business. Plain and simple. You're either a church or a business, not both.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I think forcing churches to host gay marriage ceremonies is certainly a step way, way too far; an attempt to guarantee freedom from discrimination for gays ending up in the demolition of freedom of religion.

Freedom religion protects the people, not the religion.

[Godular]

Cultural pressure. People don't want to admit it. The people I hang with tend to be a bit more open-minded about ice cream experimentation, though.

Just so you know, if you hold my kids love of pistachio ice cream against him, we are going to have problems.

You durn busybodies! It was bad enough you forced us to accept neapolitan ice cream. Now pistachio?!

I swear, if anybody starts taking about eating caramel swirl I'mma git my white bedsheets together again... and clean the shit out of 'em.

Seriously you know how bad those stain?

[Tekania]

*gasp* Such language!







I couldn't care less about whether gays can marry or cannot. Marriage, as in the certificate, is a legal partnership defined by the government, they can do with it what. What a church recognizes as marriage should have no bearing on the validity of a government-defined partnership, but it should at least be able to maintain its own definition inside its own building and not be forced to let a major perceived sin go on upon its property.

If a church doesn't want to operate under business laws, it shouldn't operate as a business. Plain and simple. You're either a church or a business, not both.

There's not even much of an issue, all a church has to do is not rent to the general public. Many churches only rent facilities when one member is a member in good standing of said church or congregation.

[Patridam]

If a church doesn't want to operate under business laws, it shouldn't operate as a business. Plain and simple. You're either a church or a business, not both.

A church is a church, plain a simple, and should never be considered for or subjected to the same laws as a business. In several states businesses themselves are being granted greater freedom in the refusal of services that would compromise their beliefs.

[Steamtopia]

If a church doesn't want to operate under business laws, it shouldn't operate as a business. Plain and simple. You're either a church or a business, not both.

A church is a church, plain a simple, and should never be considered for or subjected to the same laws as a business. In several states businesses themselves are being granted greater freedom in the refusal of services that would compromise their beliefs.

A church is non-profit. If you're selling your services for a profit, you're no longer non-profit and therefore no longer given special exemptions.

[Patridam]

A church is a church, plain a simple, and should never be considered for or subjected to the same laws as a business. In several states businesses themselves are being granted greater freedom in the refusal of services that would compromise their beliefs.

A church is non-profit. If you're selling your services for a profit, you're no longer non-profit and therefore no longer given special exemptions.

You don't quite understand the concept of a nonprofit, do you? Just because something makes money via the sales of services or goods, doesn't mean it can't be a nonprofit, just look at the Salvation Army selling used clothes and housewares. All a church has to do to be nonprofit is put all of its "profits" directly back into itself, whether to pay employees, maintain facilities, or invest in further expansion, etc.

[Steamtopia]

A church is non-profit. If you're selling your services for a profit, you're no longer non-profit and therefore no longer given special exemptions.

You don't quite understand the concept of a nonprofit, do you? Just because something makes money via the sales of services or goods, doesn't mean it can't be a nonprofit, just look at the Salvation Army selling used clothes and housewares. All a church has to do to be nonprofit is put all of its "profits" directly back into itself, whether to pay employees, maintain facilities, or invest in further expansion, etc.

If they're not making a profit, the section of the law is irrelevant. This is discussing for-profit businesses, which you'd know if you read the law. And yes, as someone who has studied economics, I'm fully aware of the difference between non-profit and for-profit.

[Aggicificicerous]

A church is non-profit. If you're selling your services for a profit, you're no longer non-profit and therefore no longer given special exemptions.

You don't quite understand the concept of a nonprofit, do you? Just because something makes money via the sales of services or goods, doesn't mean it can't be a nonprofit, just look at the Salvation Army selling used clothes and housewares. All a church has to do to be nonprofit is put all of its "profits" directly back into itself, whether to pay employees, maintain facilities, or invest in further expansion, etc.

So an organisation that sells a product and then "puts all of its profits directly back into itself"? You know what that sounds suspiciously like? A business.

[Patridam]

You don't quite understand the concept of a nonprofit, do you? Just because something makes money via the sales of services or goods, doesn't mean it can't be a nonprofit, just look at the Salvation Army selling used clothes and housewares. All a church has to do to be nonprofit is put all of its "profits" directly back into itself, whether to pay employees, maintain facilities, or invest in further expansion, etc.

So an organisation that sells a product and then "puts all of its profits directly back into itself"? You know what that sounds suspiciously like? A business.

The delineation is subtle, yes, but churches no matter the size or perceived legitimacy are nonprofits nonetheless, whether or not they rent out their facilities for weddings.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh my fuck.

*gasp* Such language!

That doesn't happen anywhere. Except one place, where only the state church is required to.

So.. never. What a pointless discussion.

I couldn't care less about whether gays can marry or cannot. Marriage, as in the certificate, is a legal partnership defined by the government, they can do with it what. What a church recognizes as marriage should have no bearing on the validity of a government-defined partnership, but it should at least be able to maintain its own definition inside its own building and not be forced to let a major perceived sin go on upon its property.

They can, by not renting out the building for wedding ceremonies for people not affiliated with the church.

[Tekania]

You don't quite understand the concept of a nonprofit, do you? Just because something makes money via the sales of services or goods, doesn't mean it can't be a nonprofit, just look at the Salvation Army selling used clothes and housewares. All a church has to do to be nonprofit is put all of its "profits" directly back into itself, whether to pay employees, maintain facilities, or invest in further expansion, etc.

So an organisation that sells a product and then "puts all of its profits directly back into itself"? You know what that sounds suspiciously like? A business.

Umm, what defines something as a "for profit" or a "not-for-profit" is how profits are handled. Non-profits can make profit, what makes them non-profits is that none of the profit is used to pay dividends back to owners/investors.

[Ethel mermania]

So an organisation that sells a product and then "puts all of its profits directly back into itself"? You know what that sounds suspiciously like? A business.

The delineation is subtle, yes, but churches no matter the size or perceived legitimacy are nonprofits nonetheless, whether or not they rent out their facilities for weddings.

Profit or not is not the issue, public accommodation, is the issue. If they offer the rental services to all, they have to abide by the laws of the state, if they offer it only to members of the church, they can discriminate all they want.

[Patridam]

The delineation is subtle, yes, but churches no matter the size or perceived legitimacy are nonprofits nonetheless, whether or not they rent out their facilities for weddings.

Profit or not is not the issue, public accommodation, is the issue. If they offer the rental services to all, they have to abide by the laws of the state, if they offer it only to members of the church, they can discriminate all they want.

Well a church should not ever in any circumstance be forced to provide wedding services for a gay marriage should they choose not to.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Profit or not is not the issue, public accommodation, is the issue. If they offer the rental services to all, they have to abide by the laws of the state, if they offer it only to members of the church, they can discriminate all they want.

Well a church should not ever in any circumstance be forced to provide wedding services for a gay marriage should they choose not to.

If they're a public service then yeah, they should be.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Profit or not is not the issue, public accommodation, is the issue. If they offer the rental services to all, they have to abide by the laws of the state, if they offer it only to members of the church, they can discriminate all they want.

Well a church should not ever in any circumstance be forced to provide wedding services for a gay marriage should they choose not to.

If it's a public service (not only offered to members) they should be.

[Steamtopia]

Profit or not is not the issue, public accommodation, is the issue. If they offer the rental services to all, they have to abide by the laws of the state, if they offer it only to members of the church, they can discriminate all they want.

Well a church should not ever in any circumstance be forced to provide wedding services for a gay marriage should they choose not to.

So you don't care for the law. Good to know.

[Patridam]

Well a church should not ever in any circumstance be forced to provide wedding services for a gay marriage should they choose not to.

If it's a public service (not only offered to members) they should be.

No they should not. There is no guaranteed separation of business and state, but there is a separation of church and state. Churches have always followed different stipulations, rules, and tax structures than businesses do.

[Steamtopia]

If it's a public service (not only offered to members) they should be.

No they should not. There is no guaranteed separation of business and state, but there is a separation of church and state. Churches have always followed different stipulations, rules, and tax structures than businesses do.

Unless they operate as businesses, in which case they're to abide by laws that govern businesses.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If it's a public service (not only offered to members) they should be.

No they should not. There is no guaranteed separation of business and state, but there is a separation of church and state. Churches have always followed different stipulations, rules, and tax structures than businesses do.

They're still a public service.