Posted on 11/15/2009 6:04:29 PM PST by wide meadow
The D.C. Council is considering a law forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. The law would apply to all groups that have contracts with the District, including Catholic Charities, one of the city's largest social services providers. The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.
(Excerpt) Read more at views.washingtonpost.com ...
Is there something about the First Amendment that these folks don’t get?
1/11106 = .00009004
Is there something about the First Amendment that YOU don’t get?
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Yes, but judges have already shot that admendment with so many holes it looks like swiss cheese.
It's already illegal to pray silently in front of an abortion mill lest anyone feel "terrorized". Oh, and as for peaceably assembling before an abortion mill? That can be illegal too.
Free speech? Can't run an issue advocacy ad within 60 days of a general election (thanks, McCain!). Can't pray aloud in a graduation ceremony.
Oh, and pretty soon the state will own the media, lock stock and barrel.
Better find a different rationale to support this one.
No, rather than follow an immoral law, the Church will instead get out of the charity business.
Obama doesn’t want church charities. It interferes with the State.
This is an imposition of a state-created morality upon the Church. It has not only the right but the responsibility to resist it.
You are confusing the issue. The Muslim desire to impose their practices on Western societies has nothing in common with the objection of the Church to being forced by the state to do something which quite simply violates traditional Christian morality (the morality upon which our society was built, incidentally).
"Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to, regarding, concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Free translation: "Religion -- pro or con -- ain't none of the government's business."
Well, it is D.C. Center of Democrats and crime. What else could we expect?
74% yes.
It’s not Pagan, it’s Heathen. Pagan refers to a religion with some influence or minor influence from Buddhism. Heathenism refers to minor cults, primitive religions and the Godless. Since the Buddhists honor life above all, it’s a godless D.C.
Direct link, please.
1st Amendment freedom of religion.
Here is the problem. Once a religious organization accepts anything from the government, such as tax exemption, the organization is making a deal with the Devil so to speak. The government is no silent partner. The only way for the church to be faithful to its teachings, including moral teachings, is to sever all ties with the government.
I understand it fine, thanks.
But maybe I missed the part where churches get to decide whether the law is OK to follow or not.
That seems to be what will happen. I wonder why it didn't happen in Massachusetts or other places, though.
I'm not at all confused, except about the original question, which was "should DC require the church to follow the law?". What else is there? Passing a law which it is NOT required to follow? ? ?
The Muslim desire to impose their practices on Western societies has nothing in common with the objection of the Church to being forced by the state to do something
No, but if DC passes a law which it doesn't require the churches to follow, how long before the Muslims pick up on that? Is that really a box we want to open?
which quite simply violates traditional Christian morality (the morality upon which our society was built, incidentally).
Look, I already said that it's a stupid law, but if it becomes law, then it's a law and everybody is required to follow it. To pass a law that you don't have to follow if you don't agree with it is an absurd idea.
You can see that the bottom line is that they want to force the Church to accept, and eventually BLESS, that which the Church considers sinful. They will brook no opposition to that goal.
I understand that.
They will brook no opposition to that goal.
I understand that.
By all means, I hope the church opposes passage of such a law by any means possible.
But the question, as worded in the title of this thread, is absurd.
And what IS the difference between DC and Mass., in this regard?
Sorry, moral objections trump state-imposed laws. Would you have followed a law under Hitler that forced you to seize Jewish property, report on your neighbors, etc?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.