visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If that is the case, churches are going to start being sued for following religious doctrine within the year...
The day that a Roman Catholic Church gets sued for refusing to marry a person with a living ex-spouse, I will give your claim some credence.
'Til then, you're just Chicken Little, running around crying, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
Churches already have been sued as have pointed out in the past on these forums, and for the record you were perfectly fine with it, since the church had let other people use their property before (even though those groups (unlike the same-sex couple wanting to get married there) had agreed not to do anything on the property that the church would find morally objectionable).
So, quite frankly visagrunt your posting history does not fit what you are claiming you would do, I seriously don't want to go digging through posts throughout this forum to quote you on this, but I will if necessary.
UPDATE:
An example was easier to track down than I thought
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Yeah, cause I'm throwing the argument of several individuals (including visagrunt's and you) right back in their faces.
You are saying that people that are homosexual are being discriminated against, and the only way to fix it is to completely ignore the religious liberty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. In states where homosexual marriage is legal, religious charities have been ordered to perform things that are in violation of their religious beliefs. They are told to either get rid of their religious principles or shut down their charity.
Churches have been told they have to allow same sex marriages on their property or they can't use said building for anything other than mass. When a church rents out a building on their grounds, it is with the understanding that nothing will take place on said property that would be found to be morally objectionable to the church. Homosexual marriage is considered sinful (homosexuality in general classifies as morally objectionable), just like a porn studio would be considered morally objectionable (most churches aren't corrupt like what we saw with the Catholic Church), just like a brothel would be considered to be morally objectionable.
Fact is whenever Homosexual Marriage is made legal in a state, it is then used to trample on people's 1st Amendment Rights, despite the false claims made earlier to the contrary (and the same person also admitted this trampling took place in the same post).
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Renting a hall to members of the public is not a religious act, and there is no protection that arises from the first amendment as a result. Find me a precedent where a court has made a final judgement saying otherwise and we will talk.
But otherwise you are lying about the meaning of the first amendment.
Quote:
Btw, violence directed towards conservatives does happen in the United States, I know the mainstream media likes to ignore violent attacks directed towards conservatives, likes to ignore SWATTING, likes to ignore the vandalism, etc., however the fact that the left wing media doesn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just demonstrates the blatent dishonesty of most of the media.
In the Chick-fil-a "boycott" that backfired, we saw conservatives and moderates coming out in droves to support Chick-fil-a because they are fed up with the Political Correctness insanity.
What was the left's response.
1. Label people as being bigots
2. Bomb threats
3. Vandalism
4. A shooting in Washington DC
I know of some Conservative Bloggers that have been targetted by liberals. Said liberals phoned in phony shootings so that SWAT teams would show up at said Conservative blogger's house (I'm guessing the liberals wanted the Conservative arrested or more likely actually shot full of holes).
So, don't go trying to lecture me about liberal civility, or the idea that liberals are tolerant.
Difference between when a Conservative commits an act of violence compared to when a Liberal commits it.
The mainstream media tries to brand all Conservatives as hate mongers, while trying to sweep violent acts committed by liberals under the rug and pretend nothing happened.
In short, these attacks on people's 1st Amendment Rights (specifically their religious liberties), have actually happened and continue to happen; just the mainstream media likes to look the other way cause they view their left wing ideology to be more important than telling the truth and doing their jobs as journalists.
Meanwhile you try to brand all liberals as intolerant.
Instead of diverting attention away from the lies and hypocrisy that you use to try to make your point, why not try to remain on topic.
So let's reduce this argument to a single issue:
Can you demonstrate that a congregation renting a hall to the public is a religious practice protected by the first amendment?Leave all the other rhetoric aside and answer this one, simple question. Has a court (preferably, but not necessarily the Supreme Court) ever made a judgement that would protect this activity from public regulation?
I also underlined the part that I had previously bolded. You talk about the church letting a meeting take place on their grounds opens them up to being forced to allow gay marriage to occur on their property, the
agreement for a group to be able to have a meeting on church grounds is that they do not do anything that the church would find morally objectionable. Little old ladies having bingo night (provided there is no booze or something other crazy thing going on), is not something that is morally objectionable, having a meeting over whether or not to fight the city on them putting a truck depot where it could potentially contaminate multiple neighborhoods' well water, is not a morally objectionable use. Having a brothel holding some sort of sex-a-thon is a morally objectionable situation, so if they had allowed that, you would have a point, but they didn't.
Fact of the matter is you yourself admitted you are okay with people's religious liberties not being respected.
07 Dec 2012, 6:45 pm
