Skip to comments.Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings [Where's The Revolution?]
Posted on 04/23/2012 10:23:23 PM PDT by Steelfish
Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings
Apr 23, 2012 By Todd Starnes Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.
The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the citys human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.
According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.
Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.
They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals, Dye said. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. Its along that kind of thinking.
Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is un-American.
It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda, Staver said. This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
What it means is that they will stop renting to anybody.
If this happens, I hope it is immediately stayed by a court. It’s a blatant violation of freedom of religion.
Heyyyyyy! I have an idea!
Go to Hell and Burn!
Nothing like a lame ordinance in a vain attempt to undermine the 1st amendment.
It will never pass a challenge.
In my hometown the Baptist Church is made of white brick. The church built a building across the street and matched the brick. It is rented out to the general public. One day a black woman called and wanted to use the building. She was told the fee and the woman said they couldn’t charge her a fee because it is a government building. When asked why she thought it was a government building she said “Because all buildings made of white brick are government buildings.”
I have a feeling before too long the church will have to start allowing certain people to use it for free.
Separation of church and government works both ways. If you decide to step on my toes, all bets are off.
Whatever happened to private property rights? If I have a building I should be able to rent it to whomever I please. A church is privately owned.
If not then why can the NAACP boot Alan West and still maintain it’s tax free status?
Hutch? Really? WTF?
I guess I need to grab a paper the next time I’m in the convenience store.
I think that new city elections are due, immediately.
Try the “recall” process against these leftist aholes.
Remember, Sebelius once ran Kansas, right into the leftist cesspool and now she’s doing it to the country.
It is time that the taxpayers of Hutchinson took control of their city and cleaned house with Ex-Lax. Then abolish the Human Rights Commission/COuncil/Outhouse.
As far as religious freedom being protected at this level, check out the following FR thread and read a couple of paragraphs from the bottom of butterdezillion’s posting about Romney:
(I know you’re no Newt fan, but try to ignore that and check out the freedom of religion points of the post :-)
Your spelling is horrible! As a male 1/20th native lesbian I must agree with something! I’LL USE SOME CAPS!!!!
Surely you jest.
Two Words: Private Donation - i.e. you let church members have the hall or wedding for free and then ask for a private donation of over a certain amount.
Looks like the time to choose between obeying God’s laws or man’s laws will be soon upon the whole nation. If abominable
laws like this pass at the local level,look for it nationally.
Any business or organization can voluntarily pretend "marry" publicly two people of the same sex, and they're perfectly free to do so, and gay couples can behave as they please. By the same token, if churches and businesses and organizations and communities opt to turn away any dealings with openly homosexual "customers," that's their right, too. Gay "rights" seek to deny that right, and anti-discrimination laws have gone a long way to fomenting footing for an immoral lifestyle that's now infecting teens.
Limited government conservative philosophy is one that's a friend to morality -- the biggest opponent to Americans' living morally IS the government!
What about the mosque up the street?
Reductio ad absurdum: Definition:a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
A Hutchinson Church probibits marriage as being one other than between a man and a woman.
A proposed descrimination ordinance would prohibit all churches in Hutchinson, Kan. from renting out their facilities for gay wedding.
Therefore, churches in Hutchinson Kansas are free to practice their religion.
Law hasn't been passed yet, only proposed. Time for revolution.. when and if it passes. Or Obama implements the policy by executive order, stating, "We Can't Wait" or some other happy horse pucky, like he did when the EPA declared CO2 to be a pollutant. (Nobody asked the trees and other green plants). Or when he mandated that Churches and religious institutions such as hospitals run by religious orders, would have to pay for birth control if they offered health insurance to their employees.
There are 42k residents of the city. If you use known statistics...the Catholic, Baptist, and Christian Churches in the area make up around 27 percent of the population. I could count the Methodists for 17 percent...but I suspect that they might have been the ones behind this law change.
I’m pretty sure if they all united under one umbrella...they could pull down at least one member of the city council. If you note their city gov’t....it consists of one mayor, one vice-mayor, one at-large city council person, and two other city council folks.
But let me add this. Someone has likely come along with an agenda to divide the town. Some naive individuals have sat in a meeting and bought off on various rule changes....without really considering where it leads to. I think the ultimate goal here....divide up the town into two camps and keep them focused on some division. They didn’t have to pick on this church rule....but obviously, it was pulled out of a magician’s hat and made into a division topic.