Posted on 08/27/2013 10:01:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Associated Press reports that some churches are taking steps to change their bylaws after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act out of a desire to protect themselves from potential claims by same-sex couples. The article reported that some critics argued that such changes were unnecessary and amount to “a solution looking for a problem.”
But as an attorney who defends the constitutional freedoms of churches on a daily basis, all the assurances of those who have been actively seeking to redefine marriage that they will not target churches ring hollow in light of what is already happening. For example, Hawaii passed a civil-unions law that took effect last year. One of the provisions of the law specifies that if a church allows members of the public to use its facilities for weddings, then it cannot deny a same-sex couple the ability to use the church building for a same-sex ceremony. Just last year, the city of Hutchinson, Kansas, attempted to pass an ordinance mandating the same thing. The FAQs for the ordinance specifically stated: “For example, if a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Across the pond, a same-sex couple is planning to sue the Church of England to force the church to host its ceremony.
Those who imply that churches are silly or misguided in seeking to protect their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms by proactively adopting bylaw changes simply do not understand the coming threat – or even just simple prudence. There is reason for churches to act now to be prepared. Alliance Defending Freedom offers free resources to help churches in this process.
Don’t listen to those who claim that churches should do nothing because no threat exists. It doesn’t take an attorney to know that the evidence speaks for itself.
— Erik Stanley is senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.
is it legal for a church to refuse to marry blacks? Or hire them?
That test will tell you if the libs are coming for them next.
To the headline: yes
If the Constitution doesn't protect us, than nothing will (short of armed resistance/offensive.)
no real church would even consider doing a thing like that.
if this were to happen anywhere, it is a clear signal that its time to find another church... quickly.
(giving Caesar the power to rewrite the Bible...not a very Christian thing for a church to do....)
We know that Obama supports those who behead Christians and Jews. That should answer any questions about what Obama will do in the U.S. to Christians and Jews. Whatever he can get away with.
I assume by “bylaws” they mean things like their policy on letting non-members use the facilties, rather than doctrinal stances. Of course, I object to the idea of churches having “bylaws” at all.
The tactic is to somehow construe any institution under attack by the Lefties as a “public accommodation.” Soon, churches most certainly will be brought under this legal construct and required to do the state’s bidding - either at the risk of a revocation of tax-exempt status (along with assessing back taxes from inception) or by just plain jack-booted force of law.
What’s “freedom to worship” anyway? Americans don’t live in a “Homeland” that protects “Freedom to Worship”. That’s creepy Bush Obama NWO Nazi lingo.
We have freedom of “religion”, in “America” or in the “United States”.
Yes, some churches do rent out their facilities to gain a little income. However, I hardly see the legal right of someone fundamentally challenging that church in court to drop its ethics, morality and Godly dogma. Do judges not realize that public might be Satanists or Wiccans? Have they sued to use a parish education building? No. Let it be the same for these faggots.
If judges REALLY want to go down this road, then I see lawsuits forcing Mosques to allow Jewish weddings, Pagan Pork ceremonies, and what ever push back we can think of.
And we really need to start pushing back, using the same legislation from the bench tactics the liberals all seem to use.
Of course churches are at risk. That’s the final plan. Sadly, the R’s pose absolutely no meaningful defense against it. We’re all Marxists now, don’tcha know?
This would seem to include any and all of our favorite personalities and wannabe candidates. Busily off fighting smaller divisive battles with much noise and fanfare, ignoring that our foundations are being rocked, against the churches, IN the churches, actually.
Yes, but only if they have a written policy that they can back up with scripture.
That's difficult if you want to exclude a racial group. Homosexuals, not so much.
One way is to make people believe that their rights come from the Constitution ("Constitutional rights") instead of from God. This makes it easier to alter or change the definition and/or the meaning of the words in the document: if men wrote the document, men can change it; if your rights are given to you by men, via the Constitution, other men can then take them away.
Complain or protest against any liberal idea? Hate speech. Refuse to go along with any liberal plan? Mean-spirited. Any idea from a conservative? "It'll take us back to the fifties! It'll roll back 'progress' (euphemism for any liberal idea)." Churches won't 'marry' homos? Take away their tax-free status and pass laws forcing them to go against their beliefs (what first amendment about religion?).
I see.
I did not pick that up.
I just gathered, perhaps inaccurately, that the article meant the churches would be doing or permitting “gay marriages” to be performed in their facilities?
my apologies if I misunderstood
thanks!
Easy to fix....churches that are opposed to pervert “marriage” can *intentionally* re-word their ceremonies so that they’re not recognized by civil authorities and as “lawful marriage”.That church can,furthermore,declare that the ceremony they perform is *solely* religious in nature and the clergyman in question will determine who is,and is not,”worthy” of that ceremony.Any couple that’s lucky enough to be approved by that clergyman can then be encouraged to go down to City Hall to arrange for the two minute ceremony that will allow them to check “married” on their 1040.
Not with many local non-discrimination laws like the ones here. Homos are treated as special protected victim status the same as blacks, in the laws.
YES!
It was the Soviet constitution that guaranteed freedom of worship. The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion.
“Freedom of worship” is adopting the nomenclature of Obama. Instead, use the phrase “freedom of RELIGION”, which allows for the practice of faith outside the walls of the sanctuary.
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.