Posted on 10/23/2014 7:19:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
All churches are open to the public. Sure, they lock their doors at times; I’ve yet to run into a place that doesn’t do that, but the idea of church of any denomination is that anyone is welcome to come in and pray. That applies to Christian churches, but that also applies to most other houses of worship I can list: Jewish synagogues, Buddhist temples, and Muslim mosques. After all, how is a church supposed to gain converts if they don’t allow those not already formally affiliated to enter?
All churches, and other houses of worship also allow wedding ceremonies (as well as other ceremonies) on their grounds, and these ceremonies often are officiated over by a member of the clergy for that house of worship. A fee is charged for both the use of the facilities and, usually, for the speaking of the holy words and solemnizing of the marriage.
If houses of worship are open to the public and make money from offering a service, then under liberal rationale doesn’t that make them business that are “open to the public?” I have a hard time seeing how it doesn’t. And this creates a very dangerous problem.
In Coeur D’Alene, Idaho a recent issue has caused a stir in the nationwide gay marriage debate. A wedding chapel run by two Christian ministers has been told that they must officiate gay weddings or be fined and/or serve jail time. Conservatives have lambasted this as an attack on religious freedom and the first amendment. Liberals have (mostly) reacted with glee. Despite having assured everyone that religious officials would never be coerced into performing ceremonies against their conscience, there has been strikingly little condemnation from the Left on this development so far.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
If that is true, then why does the Catholic vote go democrat and for Obama, and the Protestant vote go republican and against him?
By the way, there are a number of reasons why a pastor might refuse to marry a party of two or three or more persons who desire a marriage license and civil contract. Perhaps:
-- One of the parties is a drunk.
-- One of the parties is in debt.
-- One of the parties is immature.
-- One of the parties is Jewish and the other Catholic.
-- One of the parties is an atheist.
-- One of the parties is a florist.
-- The parties demand the preacher bake them a cake.
-- They want a red swastika decoration on the cake.
-- One of the parties is white, red-headed, and left-handed.
-- One of the parties looks funny.
-- One of the parties doesn't believe in global warming.
-- There are three parties.
Which of these involve civil-rights law and prohibitions on discrimination?
Churches are public placed for the people who support it by prayers, finances and being involved in spreading the gospel.
None of them should be. Civil rights and discrimination violations should only be on government entities. The first amendment provides for freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
I think the ruling in Hosanna Tabor may come into play here. The performing of marriage ceremonies should be considered a ministry of a church payment or non payment do not enter into it. Therefore a church is acting as a religious establishment with the First Amendment protections and rights that implies. What a business’s status is under the tax code has nothing to do with the rights it may exercise under the First Amendment, with that stupid exception about not endorsing candidates for election.
So churches are now “public” and national parks are off-limits... strange
Why should we give a crap about “liberal rationale”, since leftists are not rational?
Now, if you were to ask whether the IRS might declare the LDS church to no longer be a tax exempt organization because of their "hateful" ways, my opinion is that the doctrine would still not change. In 1838, the governor of Missouri signed an executive order making it legal to kill Mormons on sight, and the federal government tried to kill off the Church legally later in the 19th century, so a mere IRS ruling isn't that big a deal. (My opinion, again.)
Right now, I've got too much on my plate to worry about "maybes".
What did all that nonsense have to do with my post?
To worship in the Mormon temples requires ID that must be reissued every two years, after two interviews from church leadership, verifying among other things, that you truly give at least 10% of your income to them.
If they get away with pushing gay marriage into churches, they won’t get away with forcing ministers to condone it during the ceremony. Make it a terrible and risky experience forcing your butts into churches.
That is true. All denominations have their own "house rules" that stem from their doctrine plus tradition. My husband will not marry a couple unless they have at least one or two counseling sessions. There is no law that says he has to require that. It's a matter of personal belief and religious obligation. A pastor must have freedom of conscience under God's will. They will not move from that freedom if they are truly committed to the Lord.
As I read your post, you were commenting on religious freedom, and also on the entry requirements for Mormon temples. Agreeing with you, I added information on the interviews that I thought some FReepers might not know. I kept to the topic and added a bit to it. So, characterizing my post as “nonsense” is a bit confusing. But, if “nonsense” is how you define polite conversation, so be it.
Your post 29 was wild nonsense and irrelevant to the thread and my post about the Mormon temple being open and public, Temple worship isn’t even open to most Mormons, because they don’t pay enough of their money to the religion.
If you will take the time to re-read my post, I never said the temple was open and public. In fact, that is precisely why it stands a greater chance of surviving any legal battle. I also never disputed your statement regarding church members who do not pay a full 10% tithe, which is also part of church doctrine. So, we find ourselves in complete agreement, not at odds.
Read my post, I said “Your post 29 was wild nonsense and irrelevant to the thread and my post about the Mormon temple being open and public”.
Post 29 was a goofy post in which you posted some whoppers.
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.