Posted on 10/20/2014 9:45:07 AM PDT by GrandmaC
The rabid ones are so mean spirited and sour that they would already have done it if it would benefit them-but the rather obvious hypocrisy has kept it from happening so far...
No, you didn't. ADF is the organization defending the ministers against this assault on their religious liberties. From the article:
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.
Actually given where we are in that we have totally lost this debate — I am fine with your proposal. It is actually quite clever in that it is a retreat as well as a reshape of the terms of the debate. We would still battle the left on civil unions as they go forward with polygamy, child unions and all sorts of perversions. But those debates would be totally separate from marriage which is limited to church marriages.
Government recognizes civil unions. Churches recognize marriage. Christians will have a civil union and marriage. Sort of have that anyway because once a pastor marries the couple they still need to apply for a license.
I do see the left fighting to continue to redefine our term “marriage”. Thus I don’t see the left agreeing to these revised terms. They want to force the church to become perverted.
Now from the article:
But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.
So we see that the crux of this issue is not the false "separation of church and state" doctrine, or freedom of religion under the first amendment (although that could come into play as a defense). As you can see from the story, it is about freedom of association and the authority of the government to infringe on it via "anti-discrimination" law. If we are going to win this fight, we need to focus on the real issue here-- free association as a God given right that cannot be infringed upon by government. To change this would require overturning state anti-discrimination laws, which are based on the precedent of Civil Rights Act (CRA) 1964. Unless you are willing to say the government has no right to infringe on who you wish to associate with, provide services or public accommodation to, we will never win this. Who thinks we will ever have the political will to do this? Most so-called conservatives would never challenge CRA. When Rand Paul correctly stated that he wouldn't support the section of CRA 1964 that placed limits on free association for this very reason, he got lambasted and ridiculed here and on other conservative forums-- but he correctly inferred that without overturning that precedent any other government ordained arbitrary limits on an individuals right to associate with, provide services to, or to provide public accommodation to persons whom he does wish will always win. People act oh so concerned, but in the end they fear being politically correct and being called names (racist) more than doing the right thing to avoid permanently losing all of their rights. May your chains rest lightly on you all (to whom it applies).
The free people have given way to the freaky people who make laws that defile our society.
This is disgusting.
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.