Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling

AP via SFGate ^ | 6/4/8

[SmithL]

San Francisco, CA (AP) --

California's highest court has refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

[seprgs]

That’s my understanding also. The location in question was not a church sanctuary, it was a public place used for a variety of purposes ovr the years.

[taxesareforever]

Of course, they probably all use the same bathroom and do the tap dance.

[messierhunter]

The beach-side pavilion that the gays wanted to marry in was rented out for profit for concerts, performances, as well as weddings.

No shit, I've been to churches that allow their buildings to be used for profit christian concerts, christian comedy performances, as well as weddings. What you just described covers just about every large church in the nation. Thanks for proving my point that this issue will eventually spread out until it affects nearly every church.

[messierhunter]

Exactly, except it's you who has failed to prove the existence of churches being forced to perform or allow gay marriages against their wishes.

Wrong, it is you who have failed to show a distinction between the methodist property that was successfully sued (you even failed to find out that the group has already lost their state tax exemption) and every other church organization in the nation. There is nothing significant that separates this church's land from other churches with property used for a wide variety of public events.

I cannot fathom the depths people like you will stoop to in order to cover up the homosexual abuse of religious freedom. Try as you might to lull us to sleep, to convince us that it's just our imaginations, that these lawsuits aren't happening, they continue to happen all the same. The intelligent christian sees it and will not be lulled into a false sense of security.

[messierhunter]

That’s my point, they shouldn’t have to be “careful” about who they rent it out to as long as they stick to their morals. The government should have no business in infringing on their right to religious freedom, to invite whoever they want to use their church.

[messierhunter]

The location in question was not a church sanctuary.

Not all churches worship inside a sanctuary, and even some of the ones that do hold other land around the sanctuary for other purposes. My old church had several school buildings, a prayer house, and a temporary housing complex all on their property. Only one building was a sanctuary, the rest are routinely used for public events (and even the sanctuary is used for profit events from time to time). By the precedent set here, they'd have to allow gay couples to wed on their property or lose their property's tax exempt status, and maybe one day more than that.

[apocalypto]

I saw an ad on problems caused by same sex marriages but was not able to read it. I wrote down the sponsor which is: The American TFP at www. TFP.org. I cannot click on their Web site (there are others sites I also cannot click on and sometimes not FR).
>P>Is anyone familiar with this group?

[mngran2]

Nice language.

[mngran2]

you even failed to find out that the group has already lost their state tax exemption

Nope, I found that, but I also found that the church has sued to overturn that in court and the case hasn't been heard yet, but thanks for pretending to know what's in my head.

[messierhunter]

Fine, so you want to run under the assumption that everything will be peachy-keen and all cases brought against churches like this will be overturned and lost. Nothing to see here folks, move along, don’t mind the legal mess in the background...

[seprgs]

I think that when churches rent out their property like any other business, then they should be treated like any other business ... subject to the non-discrimination laws of the city-county-state where they are. It seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too to say “We want to rent out property like the hotels and rental management companies, but we don’t want to be subject to the same laws they are subject to because we are a religious body.” My church does not act like a business, it acts like a church, so we don’t have to worry about this.

[messierhunter]

If they want to rent out their facilities in a way that is consistent with their religion, like for christian concerts, weddings and such that should be there business. You obviosuly don't like it, but the first amendment makes it clear that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Where in that statement do you see an exception for churches that selectively rent out their property to others of their religion?