Quote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/proposed...-weddings/

Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has explained that, under the new regulations, churches that make their buildings available for the general public would not be able to refuse gay couples. This essentially means that churches would be forced to, via rental agreements, support gay nuptials.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination,” Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an interview with Fox News. “If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

Once again to the left there are no property rights....

They need to get one of those signs that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

And wouldn't a dress code be discriminatory?

(04-24-2012 07:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  They need to get one of those signs that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

According to the left you don't have that right..

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.

(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..

(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.

(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 are headed not toward European socialism, but toward European medieval feudalism. Everything is the king's, he gets his first, and he determines how what's left over gets distributed.

What happens when nobody wants to invest in such a system. Unless there are no alternatives available, nobody will. And there will be alternatives available.

I would MUCH prefer a European socialist state than where we are headed.

(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.

(04-24-2012 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are headed not toward European socialism, but toward European medieval feudalism. Everything is the king's, he gets his first, and he determines how what's left over gets distributed.

What happens when nobody wants to invest in such a system. Unless there are no alternatives available, nobody will. And there will be alternatives available.

I would MUCH prefer a European socialist state than where we are headed.

I tend to agree....I will submit though that when people stop wanting to invest in this system now...ALL HELL is going to break loose. The alternative will be very violent protest. We already are seeing it in nations that have extreme central control. Do we think we are immune to it? If we do...we are fools.

(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.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/SCOTUS-Ren...Is-Forever

Good! Religion is a very poor cover for bigotry. All couples should be treated equally.

(04-24-2012 10:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Good! Religion is a very poor cover for bigotry. All couples should be treated equally.

Why do they have a right to use someone else's property?

(04-24-2012 10:58 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 10:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Good! Religion is a very poor cover for bigotry. All couples should be treated equally.

Why do they have a right to use someone else's property?

If the Church is going to make it available for the public to use, then it's available for the public to use. White couples only? No. Straight couples only? No. It's really quite simple.

How about gays rent from someone willing to rent to them. Whether that's a church, Max Yasgur or the local Democrats for Intolerance Chapter.

(04-24-2012 10:59 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 10:58 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 10:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Good! Religion is a very poor cover for bigotry. All couples should be treated equally.

Why do they have a right to use someone else's property?

If the Church is going to make it available for the public to use, then it's available for the public to use. White couples only? No. Straight couples only? No. It's really quite simple.

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.

Genesis.

Churches don't have to marry homosexual couples because, according to the Lord, any sexual immorality, to include homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, and heterosexual affairs, are submissions to sinful desire and are blasphemous.

But what other posters had posted earlier hit the nail squarely on the head. Property rights issues boil down to criminality of the property owner's actions. This isn't a hate crime, it is a theological basis for exclusion. Churches don't have to submit to the government anything like this.

(04-24-2012 10:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Good! Liberalism is a very poor cover for bigotry.

FIFY

(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.

(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.

You are wrong. The Supreme Court just this year supported a ministerial exception to hiring practices for churches. Meaning they could discriminate against an employee that violated their religious doctrine.

If the court ruled someone can be fired for doctrinal reasons it's a fair stretch to say they would rule a church has to rent their building for things that violate their doctrine.