Pastors in Idaho face jail if they refuse to perform same sex "marriages"

[Balog]

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

Remember when all the useful idiots reassured us that same sex marriage was just about hospital visitation and fairness, and that all us crazy Bible thumpers were just paranoid and no one would ever be forced to violate their beliefs? Ah well, what's a few bankrupt businesses and jailed pastors when weighed against using the state to social engineer appropriate progressive values?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Hey I am surprised they waited this long. Interestingly it's the city not some rabid lbgtq activist .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

This is my oh-so-shocked face. 

I have just learned that a teacher at one of our local elementary schools was fired last year, when she wouldn't go along with some parents' program of having their boy live as a girl. I learned this from his girl scout leader, who just had to leave her troop for the same reason.

[Scout26]

Step 1:  Go to the local Mega-Church and demand that they perform a Jewish marriage ceremony
Step 2:  They refuse
Step 3:  Sue
Step 4:  Profit !!!!

[lupinus]

This is my oh-so-shocked face.  

I have just learned that a teacher at one of our local elementary schools was fired last year, when she wouldn't go along with some parents' program of having their boy live as a girl. I learned this from his girl scout leader, who just had to leave her troop for the same reason.

Oh come on now. We can't just let folks object to child abuse, that would be downright barbaric.

[brimic]

Step 1:  Go to the local Mega-Church Mosque and demand that they perform a Jewish marriage ceremony
Step 2:  They refuse
Step 3:  Sue
Step 4:  Profit !!!!

 

[Strings]

And here's one of the "useful idiots" weighing in, to agree that forcing people to violate their personal beliefs is wrong

I posted this blog entry earlier: Peter sums up my feeling better than I could. Although I still support a business owner's rights to be an ass

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2014/10/no-guys-its-not-first-amendment.html

[Perd Hapley]

I thought Preacherman was smarter than this:

Unfortunately, in the USA too many churches and religious individuals have assumed for decades - centuries! - that since public morality and our laws generally conformed to the dictates of their religious beliefs, they could impose the same restrictions on their customers in the business world.  That was never legally valid - merely a happy coincidence (for them, at any rate).  The world has changed.  Unfortunately for people of faith, that means we have to adapt ourselves to the society in which we live.  If certain religious principles are so important to us that we can't betray them at any cost, then we need to withdraw from commercial activities where those principles will bring us into conflict with the law.

Declining to marry someone, or declining to serve them in any other way, in no way constitutes a restriction or imposition on the customer.

[Balog]

And here's one of the "useful idiots" weighing in, to agree that forcing people to violate their personal beliefs is wrong

I posted this blog entry earlier: Peter sums up my feeling better than I could. Although I still support a business owner's rights to be an ass

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2014/10/no-guys-its-not-first-amendment.html

When pastors are jailed because of the laws folks like you helped pass, I'm sure they'll be greatly comforted by the fact that you never intended for it to happen.

I think it's funny that "free exercise of religion" apparently means you can believe whatever you want but can't in any way put it into practice. "You're free to practice your religion! Unless, of course, you voluntarily give away your rights by getting a job or starting a business. Obviously the Constitutional protections only extend to beggars."

[Strings]

As I said: I, personally, support a business owner's right to deny services to anyone for any reason.

Personally, I would prefer the the government out of the marriage business altogether. You can find my feelings on the matter all over APS

One religion (Christianity) has held sway for US history, and the laws of the land have reflected those beliefs. Now a new religion* is taking hold, and laws are changing.

We (as a people) dealt with the issues which arised from Christianity based laws (and their excesses). We will endure through these new issues (and their excesses)

*if you don't think progressivism isn't a religion, you haven't really paid attention to it's adherents

[makattak]

As I said: I, personally, support a business owner's right to deny services to anyone for any reason.

Personally, I would prefer the the government out of the marriage business altogether. You can find my feelings on the matter all over APS

One religion (Christianity) has held sway for US history, and the laws of the land have reflected those beliefs. Now a new religion* is taking hold, and laws are changing.

We (as a people) dealt with the issues which arised from Christianity based laws (and their excesses). We will endure through these new issues (and their excesses)

*if you don't think progressivism isn't a religion, you haven't really paid attention to it's adherents

I seriously doubt we will. The new religion is working assiduously to remove all traces of the previous one.

Once they succeed (at least in driving the Church underground as it is elsewhere) they will find all the accumulated moral capital of heritage Christianity* destroyed. (It is their goal, though they do not understand nor desire the consequences of it.)  The resulting society will not be one any would choose to live in.  

* (like heritage Catholics who call themselves Catholic but don't believe what the church does)

[Balog]

Ask the people in the French Revolution how removing all traces of Christianity works out.

It seems easy enough to ignore the folks who are getting thrown in jail for their religion when you aren't a member of it. That doesn't work out well either.

[Strings]

I'm not ignoring it, Balog.

[griz]

The place in question, the Hitching Post, is not a church.  They offer to legally marry people for a fee, but they are not a church even though they use ordained ministers for the ceremonies.  So that makes them a business, and as such they are subject to the laws requiring them to serve anybody.

That said, I have no idea why somebody would want to get married in a place that didn’t want to marry them.

[lupinus]

Sure glad it's a business and not a church.

Think I'll go to tge local Jewish deli and demand bacon. And use force of government that I be served the service I want bit they don't offer due to their religious beliefs.

[Ron]

The freedom of association died a long time ago.

If you don't live in a gated community you will associate with who the government says you must associate with, period.

[charby]

Sure glad it's a business and not a church.

Think I'll go to tge local Jewish deli and demand bacon. And use force of government that I be served the service I want bit they don't offer due to their religious beliefs.

I think you would have a better legal case with ordering a corned beef on rye with Swiss cheese.

They should have both items on hand but will not mix according to Kosher rules.

[lupinus]

Ok. Sex ism next time my wife drags me along for clothes shopping and they carry only women's clothes.

[Balog]

I'm not ignoring it, Balog.

Ignore it, be indifferent to it, support the laws that inevitably lead to it happening but claim it was an unintended consequence....

However you want to frame it in your own mind, the results are the same.

[Jamisjockey]

That slippery slope sailed with the civil rights act. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Balog]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/

[Hawkmoon]

I was in a meeting with an attorney today and she mentioned this in passing. I'm glad I'm not in Coeur d'Alene, because I'm a justice of the peace in my state, and I would not perform a same sex "wedding." When I was sworn in for me current term we had "civil unions," and it was widely anticipated that same sex marriage was waiting in the wings. I asked if I would be required to perform same, and the answer was "No."

Now, I'm not so sure. That was almost three years ago, and this is now.

What makes it an interesting conundrum for me is that, in addition to being a justice of the peace, I'm also an ordained minister. It's apparently possible under my state's laws that, if I were approached as a JP, I might have to agree to perform the "wedding" or face sanctions, whereas if I were approached as a clergyman I could defer based on religion. But (according to this attorney, who seems fairly sharp), the fact that I'm both could be used to force me to perform a civil wedding as a JP even though for reasons of faith I would not -- and could not be forced to -- perform the same marriage as a minister.

My term as a JP ends on December 31, 2016. I'm going to have to seriously consider not accepting another term of appointment if I won't be allowed to follow my conscience.

Interesting aside: Several years ago I performed a wedding for a mixed couple. Nope, not black and white. The bride is a Turkish Muslim. The groom is the son of a Jewish mother and a Unitarian Universalist minister father, and the groom himself professes to be an agnostic. But, they were marrying here in the U.S. and they wanted something that would satisfy the bride's parents and family in Turkey that they were "really" married. So guess what they chose as the model for their ceremony?

Give up?









The high Episcopal wedding mass from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.

It actually made for a very nice wedding. They had it caught on video and sent to the family in Turkey, and by all reports the parents were duly satisfied that their daughter wasn't living in sin.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

My sister married a jewish guy and they did a cross between a jewish wedding and a catholic one. With a lil Japanese backspin. Was nice. No one got arrested, came close but ...
 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Monkeyleg]

That said, I have no idea why somebody would want to get married in a place that didn’t want to marry them.

I wonder if it would be legal for the pastor to spit on the floor and say crude things to the couple as he performed the ceremony?

[sanglant]

Idaho? Russet baking rice?