Skip to comments.Are Churches at Risk from Redefined Marriage? Freedom of Worship is at stake
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 Courts 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.
Dont listen to those who claim that churches should do nothing because no threat exists. It doesnt 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 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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Pretty much this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RE: Just because the law changes doesnt mean we have to agree with the law.
One thing we all have to remember about the “Supreme” Court -— They’re NOT Supreme.
Will they force it of the synagogue or mosque?
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.
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...
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.
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.