Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

[GFR7]

Mayhap this UK couple will give American gays a bright idea? :think: Ya think? :jawdrop:

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated,

“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some
religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”


http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

 

[Nazaroo]

Yep. This is next.

Soon it will be jail for pastors who resist.

Unless this is stopped.

 

[GFR7]

Yep. This is next.

Soon it will be jail for pastors who resist.

Unless this is stopped.

If Cruz gets his way, it just may be stopped. :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Mayhap this UK couple will give American gays a bright idea? :think: Ya think? :jawdrop:

I don't think the idea is very novel. I also don't think it would stand a chance here.

 

[GFR7]

I don't think the idea is very novel. I also don't think it would stand a chance here.

I don't know about that. Opting out on bigoted terms? Can churches opt out of marrying inter-racial couples? :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't know about that.

Of course not. It feeds into a worried narrative that runs in your minds-eye. How much do you know about the different foundations in law and precedent?

Opting out on bigoted terms? Can churches opt out of marrying inter-racial couples? :think:

Apples and oranges. There's no Biblical injunction against interracial marriage and no scripture that marks it as a sin against the faith. It is in the nature of the office, in the foundation of its being that sin is opposed and virtue, the glory and good of God advanced. To compel a violation of that is to negate the liberty in every meaningful way and entirely. The right isn't dependent on popularity, which is why the Amish are respected in the law while many of their views aren't popularly shared.

 

[brinny]

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

That's harassment and using legal means to attempt to force a church, etc. to violate their conscience.

Those who would uphold that kind of harassment (supreme court, authorities, etc.) need to be challenged and be held accountable.

God help us.

Praying.

 

[GFR7]

Of course not. It feeds into a worried narrative that runs in your minds-eye. How much do you know about the different foundations in law and precedent?


Apples and oranges. There's no Biblical injunction against interracial marriage and no scripture that marks it as a sin against the faith. It is in the nature of the office, in the foundation of its being that sin is opposed and virtue, the glory and good of God advanced. To compel a violation of that is to negate the liberty in every meaningful way and entirely. The right isn't dependent on popularity, which is why the Amish are respected in the law while many of their views aren't popularly shared.

:think:

 

[GFR7]

That's harassment and using legal means to attempt to force a church, etc. to violate their conscience.

Those who would uphold that kind of harassment (supreme court, authorities, etc.) need to be challenged and be held accountable.

God help us.

Praying.

Agree fully: It is blatant harassment.

 

[Nazaroo]

Apples and oranges. There's no Biblical injunction against interracial marriage and no scripture that marks it as a sin

O.T. is rather specific about inter-tribal marriages,
including some prohibitions, temporary and permanent...

Its true that the NT perspective seems to have dropped that,
probably because Judaism contemporary with Jesus had
abandoned the strictness of Ezra's position,
and adopted one based on Religious participation alongside family tree histories.

Some of that change in attitude might be based more on lack of control,
and historical tribal assimilations (e.g., Edomite absorption in Maccabean times).

 

[Nazaroo]

It feeds into a worried narrative that runs in your minds-eye. How much do you know about the different foundations in law and precedent?


Apples and oranges. There's no Biblical injunction against interracial marriage and no scripture that marks it as a sin against the faith. ... The right isn't dependent on popularity, which is why the Amish are respected in the law while many of their views aren't popularly shared.

Somehow a lawyer reassuring me that there is no 'slippery slope'
is not reassuring at all.

Its like Deja Vu...

 

[brinny]

Agree fully: It is blatant harassment.

and blatant "targeting".

 

[GFR7]

and blatant "targeting".

Yes; there were compliant churches, but they want to challenge the opt-out laws.

 

[GFR7]

Somehow a lawyer reassuring me that there is no 'slippery slope'
is not reassuring at all.

Its like Deja Vu...

Exactly :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know about that. Opting out on bigoted terms? Can churches opt out of marrying inter-racial couples? :think:

As I've posted here before, in 2012 a church refused to marry a black couple. Even though there was quite a bit of publicity, no one was arrested or fined.

 

[GFR7]

As I've posted here before, in 2012 a church refused to marry a black couple. Even though there was quite a bit of publicity, no one was arrested or fined.

Then hopefully it will hold as well with many churches refusing to conduct same sex marriages.

 

[chrysostom]

the courts are going to be real busy
now
that they have decided to legislate from the bench

most of the state legislators are now controlled by the republicans
and
they know how to crank out laws
the kind that are specifically designed to frustrate court rulings
so
this will force more court rulings
but
they can't possibly keep up

it is going to be real interesting

 

[rexlunae]

Then hopefully it will hold as well with many churches refusing to conduct same sex marriages.

I think, secretly, you don't want it to go that way. It plays into your persecution complex.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then hopefully it will hold as well with many churches refusing to conduct same sex marriages.

Of course it will. The only way it wouldn't is if the federal and state governments took deliberate legal action to remove churches' and religious organizations' exemptions from non-discrimination laws. If they did that, it wouldn't apply to only gays, it would apply to everything.

That's extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[Town Heretic]

Somehow a lawyer reassuring me that there is no 'slippery slope'
is not reassuring at all.

You should try being a lawyer and listening to laymen speculate on the course of a thing they couldn't pass a test on to qualify their opinion. :smack: