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

[jeffblue101]

The basic facts are different there. That's a public business. We're talking about churches, remember?

yeah that's very reassuring, you can follow God's word or starve. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment

 

[Jose Fly]

public accommodation laws can/may (depending on how liberal the judge is) apply to church properties

Do you have an example?

not sure if non compliance can affect their tax status but they sure can face heavy burden under lawsuits and penalties ordered to be paid to gay couples.

Under what law?

yeah that's very reassuring, you can follow God's word or starve. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[jeffblue101]

Do you have an example?
Under what law?
That doesn't make any sense.

here is detailed explanation.

Will a gay marriage storm crush your church?
By Pat Vaughn, Legal Counsel, American Family Association

Refrain from renting your facilities for any use that is not closely related to the church’s religious purpose. A business that provides public accommodation cannot violate nondiscrimination laws. In recent years, Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and a camp-meeting association have been prosecuted for refusing to provide services or facilities for gay weddings. These Christians, who believed in natural marriage, were prosecuted on the basis that they conducted businesses providing public accommodations. Therefore, if your church rents its facilities for private or community purposes not directly related to its religious functions, there is a risk your church could be classified as a public accommodation. In that case, if you live in a state that has legalized gay marriage, you may be required to rent your facilities for a homosexual couple’s wedding. Your congregation can adopt a policy that it will only rent its facilities for uses closely related to its religious mission, or only use those facilities for church members in good standing.

A huffingtonpost.com article based on Hawaii's 2013 gay marriage legislation reinforces this threat,

Last year, about 1.45 million Japanese tourists visited Hawaii, and a significant fraction of them came to get married or attend a wedding. The Central Union church in Honolulu, for example, conducts about fifty wedding ceremonies a month, most of them destination weddings.

Many churches in Hawaii rely heavily on the income from these wedding ceremonies to keep themselves running. Renting one of Central Union’s venues costs $1,800 (among other add-on options, a harpist is available for another $200).

But if a special session of the Hawaii state senate passes a bill legalizing same-sex marriage next week, these churches will face a very difficult decision.

According to the public accommodations law in Hawaii, any church that makes a profit from ceremonies conducted on its property may not discriminate against a certain group -- or couple -- from holding those ceremonies.

So, for those churches that are against same-sex marriage, the choice will come down to bottom lines: their accountant’s vs.the Bible’s. In order to keep any cash flow from weddings, they must allow same-sex ceremonies in their institutions.

so far, no lawsuit that I could find has been filed against any church in America. but like in the U.K. all it takes is one well financed gay couple and a liberal judge for this threat to become a reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

here is detailed explanation.

So it's basically "don't turn your church into a place of public accommodation, or else you might be made to accommodate members of the public you don't like".

Seems sensible.

A huffingtonpost.com article based on Hawaii's 2013 gay marriage legislation reinforces this threat,

Right, because that was a church that operated for profit. Again, seems sensible.

so far, no lawsuit that I could find has been filed against any church in America. but like in the U.K. all it takes is one well financed gay couple and a liberal judge for this threat to become a reality.

Again, what law would a regular, non-profit church be charged with violating if they refused to marry a gay couple?

 

[musterion]

The point is, even though the case was covered nationally and was in the media spotlight, [1] no legal action was taken against the church or the pastor, thereby demonstrating that [2] all these predictions about churches soon to be forced to perform gay weddings or face legal action are just baseless paranoia.

1. Should there have been? Be honest, now.

2. It's different now. Blacks as a group have pretty much outlived their usefulness to the Left. Too many of them have abandoned the Democrat mind-plantation, or have grown indifferent to its needs, and so are in the process of being written off. Sodomites are where the fresh money and activist vitality lie (illegals are in 2nd place due to sheer numbers, they hope, and are probably correct). This will prove to be a whole new ballgame.

 

[Jose Fly]

1. Should there have been? Be honest, now.

No. Another relevant case comes from Kansas, where a Rev. Barclay refused to marry interracial couples. A local prosecutor filed charges against him, saying he was in violation of a state statute against racial discrimination.

The prosecutor lost but kept appealing, eventually landing the case in the Kansas Supreme Court. The Court of course ruled in favor of the pastor, stating...

"The parties have not cited, nor has our research revealed, a single case from any jurisdiction within the United States where criminal prosecution of a minister has been attempted under even remotely comparable circumstances"

AFAICT, there hasn't been a similar case since.

2. It's different now. Blacks as a group have pretty much outlived their usefulness to the Left. Too many of them have abandoned the Democrat mind-plantation, or have grown indifferent to its needs, and so are in the process of being written off. Sodomites are where the fresh money and activist vitality lie (illegals are in 2nd place due to sheer numbers, they hope, and are probably correct). This will prove to be a whole new ballgame.

What law would a pastor be charged with for refusing to marry a gay couple?

 

[GFR7]

2. It's different now. Blacks as a group have pretty much outlived their usefulness to the Left. Too many of them have abandoned the Democrat mind-plantation, or have grown indifferent to its needs, and so are in the process of being written off. Sodomites are where the fresh money and activist vitality lie (illegals are in 2nd place due to sheer numbers, they hope, and are probably correct). This will prove to be a whole new ballgame.

Exactly right, all the way.

 

[musterion]

No.

Glad to hear it.

What law would a pastor be charged with for refusing to marry a gay couple?

This will be just the start.