Being black isn't a sin.

(04-25-2012 08:31 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being black isn't a sin.

Whoa...slow down. Things like this make stupid peoples head hurt.

(04-25-2012 08:31 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being black isn't a sin.

They only refuse to serve those who are free from sin? Or is it just the "sin" of homosexuality that causes them to discriminate?

(04-25-2012 08:49 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 08:31 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being black isn't a sin.

They only refuse to serve those who are free from sin? Or is it just the "sin" of homosexuality that causes them to discriminate?

There is a difference between being free from sin and celebrating it on Church property.

(04-25-2012 08:06 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 12:29 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Yes. It is their property. They shouldn't be forced to rent it to anyone. They can do as they please with it. If they don't want the money from gay couples, that is on them. I love the idea of gay marriage, but if a church doesn't want to rent to them, it is their property.

Replace "gay" with "black" in this statement, and see if it would fly.

They make the choice to rent to the public, then they rent to the public. Gay, straight, black, white, man, woman. Period.

Why not? should a union hall be forced to rent out to a tea party? Should a rental space owned by an African American be forced to rent out to a klan group?

(04-25-2012 08:49 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 08:31 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being black isn't a sin.

They only refuse to serve those who are free from sin? Or is it just the "sin" of homosexuality that causes them to discriminate?

They only refuse to serve those whos express purpose in renting the space is to commit a sin... I very much doubt a church would rent the place out for a hetero swingers party even though there is no homosexuality involved...

Again I know this little bit of disagreement is totally intolerable to liberals but it is kind of a corner stone of a diverse society.

(04-25-2012 08:57 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why not? should a union hall be forced to rent out to a tea party? Should a rental space owned by an African American be forced to rent out to a klan group?

Sure, why not? As long as a group isn't breaking the law, or is using the space in a reasonable fashion, what does it matter? When you make the decision to rent out space to the public, you have to be aware that not everybody you are renting to is going to hold the same ideals that you do.

And frankly why should it matter? Renting out space doesn't equate to an endorsement of everything and everybody that utilizes that space. It doesn't hurt anybody. These folks just look for reasons to try and dig their nails a little deeper into gay people and then have the audacity to whine that THEY are the ones being discriminated against. LOL. Incredible audacity.

(04-25-2012 09:00 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  They only refuse to serve those whos express purpose in renting the space is to commit a sin... I very much doubt a church would rent the place out for a hetero swingers party even though there is no homosexuality involved...

Would they rent out space for a wedding between two divorced people? Or couples who had sex before marriage? Do they do background checks on all their prospective renters to be sure they are morally sound before they accept their money?

It seems like it's primarily the gays that have these folks up in arms, but they blithely look the other way for anything else.

Pretty soon, some group is going to demand renting from a liberal leaning organization, and the left will be UP IN ARMS.

The left may take some glee from seeing gays in Church, but I assure you without fail that when the tables are turned and a right leaning organization wants to rent from a left leaning organization then much hand-wringing and special exclusionary laws will be passed concerning renting spaces from liberal organizations.

(04-24-2012 08:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 08:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 08:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 07:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 07:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  That is f'ng hogwash. Churches are the private property of their members. Just because they allow public access does not mean that they are not private property. The government has no jurisdiction or business being involved in WTF they do...as long as they adhere to the principle of non aggression.

When this happened in Jersey on property that the Church owned people said "it's not the church so its ok..." We all knew that it wsa just a matter of time..

So they get to define what constitutes a church? I was taught that the church is not a building.

It was some pavilion owned by a church that they rented out pretty regularly. The state held that because they rented to someone they had to rent it to anyone (New Jersey).

Point is nobody has private property in the eyes of the left. Max has said this week he thinks it is ok and just for the state to take the bulk of your earnings if it can provide well for others, why not your home?

We had a meeting a few months ago about our company letting groups use our facilities for meetings organized by outside groups. We were told our policy is NO ONE is allowed to use our space at any time because once you open that door you don't know what's on the other side. I was thinking they didn't want Muslims, skin heads or other idiots using our space. Turns out they didn't want unions using it.

So they didn't want you to use it?

Not a surprise that their reasoning is to not allow the unions.

(04-25-2012 09:06 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 09:00 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  They only refuse to serve those whos express purpose in renting the space is to commit a sin... I very much doubt a church would rent the place out for a hetero swingers party even though there is no homosexuality involved...

Would they rent out space for a wedding between two divorced people? Or couples who had sex before marriage? Do they do background checks on all their prospective renters to be sure they are morally sound before they accept their money?

It seems like it's primarily the gays that have these folks up in arms, but they blithely look the other way for anything else.

Wow...this makes perfect sense.

If you have an apartment for rent on your property would you rent it to a convicted rapist?

I can picture the backlash now if some misogynist group(like Muslims..LOL) wanted to rent space from some militant womens rights group...the outrage would be hilarious.

Churches will eventually revise their doctrines to be on the right side of history with this one. See the Mormon Church circa 1890 and 1978.

(04-25-2012 09:25 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Churches will eventually revise their doctrines to be on the right side of history with this one. See the Mormon Church circa 1890 and 1978.

Mormons are your example..LOL

(04-25-2012 09:04 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Sure, why not? As long as a group isn't breaking the law, or is using the space in a reasonable fashion, what does it matter?

It is completely irrelevant whether it matters to you or not. Your opinion means nothing. Your point of view means nothing. If it's my property all that matters is what MY view is.

As I posted earlier, the court has already sided with the church on a matter similar to this. Unanimously to boot. If this goes before the court it's virtually assured they'd rule in favor of the church.

This is what you liberals can't seem to grasp about private property. How YOU think it should be used and how YOU want it to be used could not be less important.

(04-25-2012 08:06 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 12:29 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Yes. It is their property. They shouldn't be forced to rent it to anyone. They can do as they please with it. If they don't want the money from gay couples, that is on them. I love the idea of gay marriage, but if a church doesn't want to rent to them, it is their property.

Replace "gay" with "black" in this statement, and see if it would fly.

They make the choice to rent to the public, then they rent to the public. Gay, straight, black, white, man, woman. Period.

Honestly, I have no problem with people not renting a space to black people if they don't want to. Is it bigoted and wrong to do so? Yes! But the government shouldn't be in the business of forcing idiots to rent their room to anyone.

(04-25-2012 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 09:25 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Churches will eventually revise their doctrines to be on the right side of history with this one. See the Mormon Church circa 1890 and 1978.

Mormons are your example..LOL

Right, they don't count as a major branch of christianity in the US.

(04-25-2012 09:06 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Would they rent out space for a wedding between two divorced people?

My church would not.....

Quote:Or couples who had sex before marriage?

Having sex before getting married is a sin... Two heterosexuals getting married *is not a sin*.. The act of marriage between two heterosexuals is not a sin...

Now if two heterosexuals walked into a church and said "we want to get married but first we want to fornicate one last time in the confessional" I suspect the church would say no..

Do be annoyingly obtuse, this is not a hard concept.

Quote:Do they do background checks on all their prospective renters to be sure they are morally sound before they accept their money?

You're not this stupid are you... One can commit a sin and then later do something not in sin... It's why we need Christ in the first place.

There is a difference between sin and unrepentant sin..

Quote:It seems like it's primarily the gays that have these folks up in arms, but they blithely look the other way for anything else.

I know many churches that will not marry divorced people, will not allow divorced to serve in the eldership or any leadership role..

You're perception is not reality.

(04-25-2012 09:25 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Churches will eventually revise their doctrines to be on the right side of history with this one. See the Mormon Church circa 1890 and 1978.

Until they revise their doctrine they should have the right to use their facilities as they please. The SC has already ruled religious institutions *can* apply a standard in hiring and firing.

(04-25-2012 09:53 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 09:25 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Churches will eventually revise their doctrines to be on the right side of history with this one. See the Mormon Church circa 1890 and 1978.

Mormons are your example..LOL

Right, they don't count as a major branch of christianity in the US.

Well they may be major but they are not Christians...