Me too. (In public? - uh Me too, I guess.. Not sure what you mean. They can do anything we can do legally in public), Forced on your churches? What does that mean?
Yep. I'm a total capitalist. I don't think a person should be made to do anything with his property that he doesn't want to. If you don't want to hire gays, or blacks, or men, go to it as far as I'm concerned. (although be aware you will lose talent for this....)
(I screen out leftists, btw.... I won't hire them :) )
I do not agree with a court ruling sanctifying it,
The court ruling gave them equal protection of the laws. Which is what they ARE OWED.
Next, they will want to be "legally married" and they will decide that they REALLY love the Crystal Cathedral in California as it's so beautiful and well just lovely for their gay wedding ceremony....Rev. Schuller declines their request to use his church, and the law forces him to because, well, they are protected now.
The church should not be allowed to sanctify ANY marriage (hetorosexual or homosexual) that it does not find abides by it's ideals. It's a private organization.
Yet, with this ruling, that will start to happen, if not winning lawsuits, at least costing churches thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense across the country.
Next, they will want to be "legally married" and they will decide that they REALLY love the Crystal Cathedral in California as it's so beautiful and well just lovely for their gay wedding ceremony....Rev. Schuller declines their request to use his church, and the law forces him to because, well, they are protected now.
The church should not be allowed to sanctify ANY marriage (hetorosexual or homosexual) that it does not find abides by it's ideals. It's a private organization.
Yet, with this ruling, that will start to happen, if not winning lawsuits, at least costing churches thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense across the country.