Are Churches at Risk from Redefined Marriage? Freedom of Worship is at stake

National Review ^ | 08/27/2013 | Erik Stanley

[American Constitutionalist]

The great apostasy, deny the faith and convert to Islam and take the mark of the beast or be dealt with.
What is happening in the middle east and in Eygpt is just a trial balloon.

[Thane_Banquo]

If the Constitution doesn't protect us, than nothing will (short of armed resistance/offensive.)

The latter is more likely than the former. The Constitution is no longer operative in the US. It was on its deathbed for many years, but it officially died the day Roberts sold out and SCOTUS approved Obamacare.

[demshateGod]

“And we really need to start pushing back...”

But we won’t because we have jobs, families, church activities, vacations, etc. But even if we had professional activists like the liberals do, we’d lose because the courts are stacked. I think something like “The liberty Amendments” is our last peaceful hope.

[Thane_Banquo]

When push comes to shove the mega-evangelists will have a revelation that allows them to do whatever the powers that be want them to do - if to do otherwise would negatively affect their cash-flow.

Pretty much this.

[GeronL]

Just because the law changes doesn’t mean we have to agree with the law. There is no law that says churches must perform weddings especially for non-members.

[MeganC]

Sad to say, but at this point the Constitution will not protect us from people who see it as an impediment to their plans and who denounce people who cite the Constitution as terrorists.

[MAexile]

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.

I know I posted this on another thread, but it bears repeating.

Discuss it with a lawyer first, but as near as I can tell a church can legally discriminate. It has to be a clearly written policy that cites scripture, but it can be done.

And like I said previously, I have not seen this tested in a court of law. Frankly I think it would be interesting to see.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

I believe Scripture offers a word of guidance in this situation. The apostles were hauled before the authorities and told not to preach in the name of Christ.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

What courts or legislatures did Peter and the Apostles have going to bat for them? Sure, Gamaliel interceded on the grounds that if their mission were not from God, it would fail, but that only got them released.

And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. (Acts 5:40-42)

I think churches ought to pursue legal protection first, but I also believe that if our current regime wants all churches to perform homosexual marriage, then that's what it will require. If that happens, then churches and religious leaders will have no other choice but not obey, not cooperate, and not cave in.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If that happens, then churches and religious leaders will have no other choice but not obey, not cooperate, and not cave in.

If that REALLY HAPPENS, then America as a country shall have become akin to Nazi Germany. It will be no longer be the nation our framers envisioned.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Just because the law changes doesn’t mean we have to agree with the law.

Yes.

One thing we all have to remember about the “Supreme” Court -— They’re NOT Supreme.

[onedoug]

Will they force it of the synagogue or mosque?

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Exactly, and that is why churches and free people will bear no burden of loyalty or obedience to it. The way the Bill of Rights has been eroded or outright ignored, the government is already well down the path of breaking its contract with the people. We may pay the price for resisting, but in doing so, we stand in good company.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Will they force it of the synagogue or mosque?

They’re too few relatively to be bothered.

First, they’ll come for the Christians (as they already are doing)... then, we’ll see...

[Pollster1]

I’m please at how many on FR are objecting to the words “freedom of worship”. We cannot allow the bigots to control our language. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, and we cannot permit them to substitute another phrase in their quest to narrow our human rights protections. The right to freedom of worship was given to us by God and that entire right is protected by the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law . . .). We cannot allow them to roll freedom back any further. We have to start restoring freedom by peaceful means if it’s not too late, and taking back the English language is one of those means that we need to utilize.

[fwdude]

Just because the law changes doesn’t mean we have to agree with the law. There is no law that says churches must perform weddings especially for non-members.

All the Gaystapo will have to do is find one non-member who rented the church or the services of the clergy there, and that will open the door for the church to be construed as a "public accommodation" serving the "general public." Seriously, this will be the line of their attack.