More ministers facing jail for not performing Homosexual marriages

[Angela53510]

We had this years ago in Canada when a justice of the peace who was a Christian refused to marry two homosexuals. I don't know what happened in the end.

It just seems like common sense to me. And if I was gay, why would I even want to have someone who was against my "lifestyle" (read: sinful practices) marry me anyway. I would prefer that the person marrying was on my side.

No, this simply is the continued agenda and warfare against Christians. To say nothing of a great media piece to enrage the homosexual lobby.

Meanwhile, a long time ago in Canada:

Sask. marriage commissioners must wed same-sex couples | CTV News

 

[crossnote]

We had this years ago in Canada when a justice of the peace who was a Christian refused to marry two homosexuals. I don't know what happened in the end.

It just seems like common sense to me. And if I was gay, why would I even want to have someone who was against my "lifestyle" (read: sinful practices) marry me anyway. I would prefer that the person marrying was on my side.

No, this simply is the continued agenda and warfare against Christians. To say nothing of a great media piece to enrage the homosexual lobby.

Meanwhile, a long time ago in Canada:

Sask. marriage commissioners must wed same-sex couples | CTV News

Aren't these same people usually pro-choice?
What happened to the commissioners' freedom of choice?

 

[Atwood]

IMHO:

I don't know if there is any solution to this sodomization of the world. Maybe only the Rapture for the Christian, as Lot was led out of Sodom by the angels before its destruction. Is Sodomy the end of the line, morally? I mean like I interviewed enough addicts to get the impression that it started with Alcohol & MJ, the proceeded to worse drugs, but heroin was the end of the line.

As things go next, expect a push for man-boy sex.

A 3rd Great Awakening in the USA is theoretically possible, but I am pessimistic about it happening.
Of course we can do nothing better than evangelize while being on record against depravity.

As to the courts, the only solution is to get the sodomy laws recognized again, since our brilliant SCOTUS decided to unlegislate really recently. Think how quick things are moving: Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the courts undefended. The Obamer ran on a platform opposed to establishing same sex "marriage" first time, just a few years ago now. Petitions on the SCOTUS to re-establish the Sodomy laws should be done. If attorneys get status to argue the marriage issue at the SCOTUS, they should push for the whole ball of wax, not just permiso to opt-out on religious grounds, but for reestablishing the law the SCOTUS had no business overturning to begin with.

If the prohibition of Sodomy is on the books, even if the punishment is just a $5 fine, that should settle the other issues. Otherwise, we are probably just whistling Dixie.

 

[Atwood]

Okay so here's one answer...Don't run the business. This business shouldn't even exist as a "Christian" business, because marriage should be done by ministers and priests. So work at a Church, not open a business.

Do you have scriptural proof for any of the above? Should a Christian ever run a non-Christian business? Where does Bible say that marriage should be done by ministers & priests? BTW, all Christians are priests in the Bible.

In the scripture, I don't see either the state or the Church running weddings. It looks to me like when a man & a woman decided to be married, the woman's father made an agreement with the man, & the father gave his daughter to the groom who paid a dowry for her; then the man came one night to get the women & bring her home; she moved in with the man, & they told everyone they were married. Could this be more of our modern absolutist government trying to govern weddings?

I have to wonder when the first wedding was conducted by a church official, then when did the state decide to take over the process?

Perhaps the state should merely ignore weddings and marriage except as a matter of contract law. In fact methinks the govt involvement has caused marriage to decline, as people have shacked up or even divorced & shacked up because of government benefits; like a woman on welfare losing the welfare if she got married.

 

[Atwood]

why would I even want to have someone who was against my "lifestyle" (read: sinful practices) marry me anyway. I would prefer that the person marrying was on my side.

Angela, you raise an interesting question. Could it be that sodomists really don't care about marriage, but they don't want straight persons to have access to something that they do not. Perhaps they will be happy when marriage is just destroyed. It becomes too much of a hassle for government to deal with.

I expect our military to be greatly damage by this, as they have all these benefits for military spouses. I could see a man approaching a soldier & saying:

Lookit, neither of us is interested in the posterior of the other, nor of canoodling with each other. But if we "get married," then I will get all these benefits, $$$$$$$$. I will rebate you half if you marry me. We won't even live together. I will send you a card on your birthday.

Now what kind of a military will we have, a military of sodomists and women, while the govt pays benefits to all the men's designated spouses.

What is really going to get interesting is how this plays out in divorce court.

 

[Percepi]

I believe it's wrong to force this church to wed gays, profit or non-profit. But, I'd like to start off by pointing out some incredibly absurd statements. (Apologies in advance for not quoting names - I'm lazy.)

I have a question for people that represent the homosexual population in terms of rights. Why do homosexual partners who seek to become married think it is okay to pressure people into marrying them knowing full well what their beliefs are to begin with?

Most homosexuals believe churches should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they want. The reason this particular church is being forced to wed gays is because of an unintended side effect of a bad law meant to cease discrimination against gays from other services such as restaurants and shopping centers.

This is why I personally do not support anti-discrimination laws. If we want to end discrimination, we shouldn't achieve this means through force.

its the war on Christianity.

No, it's a war against discrimination. Don't misrepresent people's agendas, even if you disagree with them. They don't care who anyone worships or how. Many of them just want to make sure they aren't discriminated against. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that this is the goal of many pro-gay rights activists (but not all).

Personally, I disagree. I feel businesses should be allowed to choose who they serve and don't serve, whether we personally agree with them or not.

And nautilus, it has nothing to do with discriminate. It is gays who are seeking out people of christian faith and pulling this garbage just to cause trouble.

Again, wrong.

Your personal views on homosexuals is based off of your Christian views. So when someone attacks you views on homosexuals, it feels like they're attacking your Christian values as a whole. Please, learn to avoid this kind of flawed thinking! Just because someone is attacking your views on homosexuality doesn't mean they're attacking your Christian views as a whole!

they sure won't go to the local mosque and pull this stuff.. only Christian's get attacked by the homosexual mafia.

That's because almost every religious person in the U.S. is a Christian. There are about 2,106 mosques in the U.S. as of 2010. Sounds like a lot, right? Compare this to churches, in which we have 450,000!

This is an obvious Christian business. The homosexual couples can easily go elsewhere they KNOW will perform it for them. The only reason why they don't is because they WANT to make a scene with Christian businesses.

I don't know whether I agree or disagree.

I don't think a business should be immune to the law just because it's affiliated with religion. BUT, as I mentioned before, I believe ALL businesses should be allowed to choose who they do and do not serve - even if we disagree.

If a person is fired from their non-government job because they don't support gay rights - I will support that right regardless as to whether I personally feel it's called for or not. I also support the rights of businesses not to hire or serve gays. I'm perfectly fine with gay rights and gay marriage as long as people aren't forced to accept gays, hire gays, or provide service to gays. If I hear of a business that doesn't serve or hire gays, I'll simply stop doing business with them and speak against the business and why nobody should use their services. That's freedom.

We all want to protect people with laws made by a minority group - but if we're going to change culture, we need to leave it up to the people while making the playing field even. This means we don't have to like each other or even do business with each other, but we can speak about how we disagree with each other. Some protections must be put in place - I'm referring to property rights. If I disagree with someone, I don't have the right to censor them unless they're on my property. This means I can refuse to post anti-gay articles in a newspaper or website I own while churches and organizations are allowed to prohibit people from speaking in support of gays.

That's my 2 cents. I'm all for gay rights - but not through sacrificing our freedoms.