It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hawaiian-churches-denied-request-to-block-same-sex-civil-unions-66427/

"Though the new law exempted clergy from performing the ceremonies, it did not allow churches the right to refuse the use of their property for same-sex civil unions."

---

It's getting dark, people

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, the government is now forcing churches to allow church property to be used for homosexual services...not sure how many U.S. Constitution volations are being committed against this church...but I'm sure it is at last two.

[Progressive Realist]

lol

[Gravis Marketing]

A couple of questions.

1. Did these churches receive funding from the state for historical preservation or because they identify themselves as common spaces with free access? That's usually the backstory here. They take the money on those grounds.
2. Has anyone actually sued or tried to reserve these spaces? Or is this purely speculative, the churches pre-emptively suing to be allowed to deny access? Speaking from experience, people generally don't want to deal with wedding vendors who are only working with you under obligation of law.
3. Can a Jewish couple sue a Catholic church to force that church to host their wedding under non-discrimination laws?
4. If it comes to pass that the churches haven't taken money from the state on the grounds that they are public accommodations, then someone will surely legislate an exception from them.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A couple of questions.

1. Did these churches receive funding from the state for historical preservation or because they identify themselves as common spaces with free access? That's usually the backstory here. They take the money on those grounds.
2. Has anyone actually sued or tried to reserve these spaces? Or is this purely speculative, the churches pre-emptively suing to be allowed to deny access? Speaking from experience, people generally don't want to deal with wedding vendors who are only working with you under obligation of law.
3. Can a Jewish couple sue a Catholic church to force that church to host their wedding under non-discrimination laws?
4. If it comes to pass that the churches haven't taken money from the state on the grounds that they are public accommodations, then someone will surely legislate an exception from them.

There is no exemption for religious institutions, for churches, houses of worship from being subject to fines and to sanctions as provided in the legislation for refusing to allow their houses of worship to be desecrated through the use of a so-called 'civil union' ceremony.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

[Invisible Obama]

Last I checked, churches aren't publicly owned, so they can't be forced to do anything. It's getting dark for conservatives because they keep drifting further into outer space with every over the top exaggeration they come up with.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/bills/GM1101_.PDF

I am sure the Forum will stand up in unionson (the outcry has already been deafening) to protest this obvious violation of freedom of religion.

[opebo]

You believe in 'desecration'?

[Grumps]

Wow, I thought this thread was about the blacks.......

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Ridiculous.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Last I checked, churches aren't publicly owned, so they can't be forced to do anything. It's getting dark for conservatives because they keep drifting further into outer space with every over the top exaggeration they come up with.

according to U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, churche property is not immune...

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

...if I am reading this wrong, please restate what it is saying..

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wow, I thought this thread was about the blacks.......

The Atlas doesn't allow thread titles to be posted in Red, as in:

"It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals"

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

[dialectical fetishist]

If you don't like gay marriage don't get one.

There we go. Solved the issue for all the homophobes in this thread.

[Gravis Marketing]

The prospect of a same-sex civil union being held in a church against the will of the church's owners are as likely as the prospect of a Jewish couple compelling a privately-funded church to rent to them for their wedding: nil.

The judge pointed out that current law doesn't forbid it from happening. That's all. That doesn't mean that the series of unlikely events requiring it to happen, and without any change from the legislature, has a greater than 0% chance of coming to pass.

[Chareth Cutestory]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

Nope.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The prospect of a same-sex civil union being held in a church against the will of the church's owners are as likely as the prospect of a Jewish couple compelling a privately-funded church to rent to them for their wedding: nil.

The judge pointed out that current law doesn't forbid it from happening. That's all. That doesn't mean that the series of unlikely events requiring it to happen, and without any change from the legislature, has a greater than 0% chance of coming to pass.  

They are hell bent to shut down churches that preach against homosexuality.  There are even gay political organizations which send homosexual couples into the services of churches and have them disrupt the service by prolonged kissing carousing in the pews, to the point that they are asked to leave.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/church-sues-after-being-terrorized-by-gay-kissing/2107/

[Emperor SJoyce]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

If the church doesn't want to allow its property to be used for such a purpose, then there'd be an outcry, at least from me, but at this point, there have been no actual cases of such.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Hahaha "terrorized" by kissing? That right there is the primary reason I will never feel bad for churches that bring these political woes onto themselves. They so very often whine profusely about things that are so outrageously mild that it's embarrassing how seriously they take it. Plus they already get an upper hand with the perverted system of "separation" of church and state we have in this country. A victim mentality of this scale by a segment of society that is sitting atop a guarded pedestal is very offputting.

[shua]

This reminds me of when eHarmony was sued because they didn't have a program for matching gay couples.  We now have people with the expectation that they have an absolute right not to be discriminated against by anyone, even if it doesn't pose any real hardship to their lives.

[Chareth Cutestory]

This reminds me of when eHarmony was sued because they didn't have a program for matching gay couples.  We now have people with the expectation that they have an absolute right not to be discriminated against by anyone, even if it doesn't pose any real hardship to their lives.

Absolutely. Every single social battle in this country is whittled down to who can peg themselves lower on the social scale. There's no real discussion or attempt at all to understand the opposition, there's just a lawsuit driven race to be seen as the most victimized by the other side. It's pitiful and neither side of a debate like this is at all respectable. That being said, the Christian Right in this country has taken the tactic so far to the extreme on a comprehensive, cohesive scale while being firmly planted in society's drivers seat, it's hard to look at anyone else with as much distaste.

Essentially, if you want special treatment from the government, you don't get to discriminate. It's insane to me that people don't see this as anything more than a playground bitch-fest akin to that of 7-year-olds. It's as if kickball is the game put together for kids at a school for recess and the kid chosen to be a captain refuses to allow the last kid picked onto his team. Then he throws a hissy fit that it's not fair he's being forced to play with that kid. Meanwhile the kid just wants to have the same fun as everyone else and the other kids on the team don't mind, it's just the whiny fool at the top that makes a fuss.

[Senator Napoleon]

no outcry from any liberal posters?

Nope.

No as well.

[Gravis Marketing]

you really underestimate the depravity of homosexuals...for they are hell bent to shut down churches that preach against homosexuality.

No, there aren't. Probably some extremists will say things, just as extremists will always say things, but no one who has any affiliation with same-sex marriage as a legislative or judicial solution thinks that fighting churches' right to exist and say what they want is a goal they want or should pursue.

People want to get married. That's what it's about. It's actually a pretty conservative goal--have our families recognized by the legal system. It's hard to sign people up for the further goal of trying to shut down the Southern Baptist Convention by legislative fiat. (!) At that point 98% of the volunteers drift away to cocktail hour somewhere or to watch Modern Family and you lose the big donors completely.

 There are even gay political organizations which send homosexual couples into the services of churches and have them disrupt the service by prolonged kissing carousing in the pews, to the point that they are asked to leave.

Were these people pursuing the legal right to kiss in the church?

[afleitch]

I'm with brittain on this one; why does such an exemption need to be codified? Do Catholic churches regularly get hit by lawsuits because a divorcee wants to use the chapel hall for her wedding?