Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on October 20, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
-
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?
-
Hey I am surprised they waited this long. Interestingly it's the city not some rabid lbgtq activist .
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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 !!!!
-
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.
-
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 !!!!
>:D
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
I'm not ignoring it, Balog.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ok. Sex ism next time my wife drags me along for clothes shopping and they carry only women's clothes.
-
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.
-
That slippery slope sailed with the civil rights act.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Idaho? Russet baking rice? [popcorn]
-
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?
Good reason to learn a couple of really obscure languages to pray in.
"Heavenly Father, please target your lightning bolt over there, away from me, and the buffet table, and I would like to reassert that I do this under duress. Amen."
-
Things have come full circle.
"Marriage" seems to be a religious concept that got codified into law.
Now the law is telling the religious folks how they have to do it ... ;/
-
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.
Married to a non Muslim? Isn't that haram? I knew a Libyan woman who was literally terrified her family would find out about her non Muslim boyfriend. As in "they would kill me"-no hyperbole.
-
Actually, I have a brother who "converted" to Islam to marry a girl from Indonesia, and the best description of his "beliefs" is "nonexistant". However, his "conversion" was good enough for her family (and he immediately had a ham sandwich upon returning from Indonesia)
-
Married to a non Muslim? Isn't that haram? I knew a Libyan woman who was literally terrified her family would find out about her non Muslim boyfriend. As in "they would kill me"-no hyperbole.
Depends on the Turks. Turks in the hinterlands are pretty hard core. Urbanized Turks, not so much. Recall, Kemal Ataturk outlaws many traditional muslim practices. And hte resurgence of fundy Islam in Turkey is due to the hinterlands outbreeding the urban areas and then voting in fundy-friendly politicos.
-
Here is the money quote from an article I just read. The act of incorporation is rightfully used to show how there is no human right to protect; just the nuts and bolts of corporate law to follow. It is just a matter of time before the not for profit corporations are held to the same standard IMHO.
These entrepreneurs have chosen to incorporate as private businesses, with all the legal rights and privileges that entails. That means they have to follow the laws that apply to private businesses. Don’t wanna marry everyone who are entitled to marry legally under the law? Then don’t run a wedding business. After all, the government isn’t forcing you to be in that line of work.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/23/refusing-to-marry-same-sex-couples-isn-t-religious-freedom-it-s-just-discrimination.html
-
Good reason to learn a couple of really obscure languages to pray in.
"Heavenly Father, please target your lightning bolt over there, away from me, and the buffet table, and I would like to reassert that I do this under duress. Amen."
Pentecostal wedding, eh? Speaking in tongues ...
-
Married to a non Muslim? Isn't that haram? I knew a Libyan woman who was literally terrified her family would find out about her non Muslim boyfriend. As in "they would kill me"-no hyperbole.
I think Turkey progressed beyond the honor killing stage awhile back. In fact, the couple have visited Turkey together a couple or three times since the wedding, and the husband gets along fine with his in-laws. I think they may have done some kind of a Muslim (or, more likely, Turkish civil) ceremony on their first visit, but I don't think it was that important. I was told that just the video of the American wedding was enough to keep the in-laws happy.
And the mother-in-law has come to the U.S. for extended visits a couple of times. The first was when their daughter was born. I met her on the second visit, when the kid was about eight years old.
There are some elements in Turkey now who seem to be agitating for a return to a more Islamic culture, but Turkey is by law a secular state, even though the populace is overwhelmingly Muslim. But not that strict, and I don't know what flavor. The wife in the couple I married never wears a head covering, and IIRC her mother didn't, either. And I recall when I was in high school attending a party where there were several very attractive Turkish exchange students. None of them would touch the spiked punch, but they didn't wear headgear.
-
This has been an issue for as long as we have had the civil rights act. Not too many people cared during my 32 year lifetime when the civil rights act only affected race and a few other issues. Looking at the xkcd graph, it was actually a bigger issue back when the civil rights act mainly focused on race, than it is today.
I wonder how big the issues of people being forced to marry mixed race couples, and mixed religion couples has been?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fmarriage.png&hash=c4647941b33476ef7ff12179376a39b37ddf1543)
-
I wonder how big the issues of people being forced to marry mixed race couples, and mixed religion couples has been?
My first thought on this was 'very; people died over the issue.' People are still dying over the mixed religion couples.
-
This has been an issue for as long as we have had the civil rights act. Not too many people cared during my 32 year lifetime when the civil rights act only affected race and a few other issues. Looking at the xkcd graph, it was actually a bigger issue back when the civil rights act mainly focused on race, than it is today.
I wonder how big the issues of people being forced to marry mixed race couples, and mixed religion couples has been?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fmarriage.png&hash=c4647941b33476ef7ff12179376a39b37ddf1543)
I don't recall anyone being forced. Folks chose willing celebrants
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I don't recall anyone being forced. Folks chose willing celebrants
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
There have been people that have refused and have faced consequences. I remember a Louisiana justice of the peace was forced to resign when he wouldn't perform an interracial wedding back in 2009.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/
-
Being in a legal position of authority is a bit different than being a pastor. I thought there were still plenty of pastors who choose not to marry people for all sorts of reasons. Find another pastor.
-
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
That's actually a pretty cogent analysis.
-
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
That's actually a pretty cogent analysis.
No, it isn't.
We may not dictate to them, just as they may not dictate to us. It's going to be a long and difficult process for both sides to work out an accommodation.
The second part of the first statement is clearly not true. They may, and HAVE dictated that our beliefs have no right to be exercised in the public square. That's kind of important.
Further, there will be no accommodation. The progressives, once established, will brook no dissent. The Church will be driven underground. (As they are already trying to drive it "into the closet.")
So in these three opinions, he got one right.
-
As I posted previously, I am both an ordained minister and a justice of the peace. My reasons for becoming a JP had little to do with performing marriages, since as a JP I'm limited to my home state where as a clergyman I can perform a marriage in any state. But, as a JP I periodically receive communications from some national association of JPs (the name of which escapes me, since I don't belong), and it's clear to me there is a huge preponderance of JPs whose sole reason for being a JP is to perform weddings for hire.
In my case, I haven't preached in a church for probably over ten years. I can still fall back on my religious beliefs, however, if I am approached as a minister (I think). However, if I were to publicly offer my services as a JP and then try to decline on religious grounds, I think I would be on rocky ground. And that's kind of the circumstance in which this wedding chapel couple find themselves. They AREN'T a church, they are a for-profit, commercial operation in the business of "selling" weddings. Although when I first read this story I was about 100 percent on their side, after further consideration I'm nowhere near as certain that their position is defensible.
I don't advertise as a JP (which many/most in this national association do, mostly through fancy web sites), but I am still concerned. I will discuss this again with my appointing authority, and I may have to decide not to seek reappointment. If worst comes to worst, I might have to resign -- and I'm not even certain the law provides for me to resign.
-
If worst comes to worst, I might have to resign -- and I'm not even certain the law provides for me to resign.
Aren't there some crimes you can commit that would get you removed? >:D
For that matter, would discrimination be one of those crimes?
-
Apparently the town has reconsidered.
-
Apparently the town has reconsidered.
Only due to bad press I'm sure, legally they could have forced the issue.
From Peter's blog:
I have real sympathy for the conundrum facing the proprietors of the wedding chapel, but they've just run headlong into the problems faced by any business offering services to the general public. If you want to claim religious exemption from the law, you need to restrict your services to members of a particular faith or a particular congregation, all of whom understand and voluntarily accept your doctrines. If you offer your services on a cash basis to all comers, I'm afraid the situation has changed. It's precisely the same as the Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The owners' position was perfectly in order for a religious establishment, but not for a civil one. They couldn't see the difference, but a judge could - and did.
Somehow I doubt what is described above is what the founders had in mind :facepalm:
Unfortunately he is probably technically correct; so ladies and gentleman that is why there is no real religious freedom.
Like all of our rights we have them only at the whim of the bureaucracy.
-
They changed how they are incorporated. They are safe
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My suspicion is that these are not random- I think these businesses have been targeted by activists to prove a point.
-
My suspicion is that these are not random- I think these businesses have been targeted by activists to prove a point.
I suspect the same...in about the same way I suspect that fire is warm.
-
You have the right to free exercise of religion, unless you want to start a business or something crazy like that. Obviously you lose all civil liberties if you want to sell someone a good or service.
-
My suspicion is that these are not random- I think these businesses have been targeted by activists to prove a point.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FliAxnRq5qeZPy%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=4415d4d372ee198ec99a9c783b1fa188dadb5063)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Fmshckd.gif&hash=13a6497035959762de9f7ade0cedcea04d08bf4b)
-
In this case the lady initiating the complaint is already married from Massachusetts
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk