Words mean things.
Problem solved.
FReegards!
Posted on 04/03/2016 9:57:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
As our Great Sexual Heresy continues its march onwards and downwards, state governments have forced bakers, wedding planners, florists and other businesses to service faux weddings. This is unprecedented, as never before were Americans governmentally compelled to participate in events they found morally objectionable. Yet when some project out on our cultural trajectory and say churches one day will be subject to the same coercion, they’re met with laughter; this will never, ever happen, they’re told. Yet this is an illogical and inconsistent position.
Prefacing a statement in opposition to the hapless bakers at a campaign stop a while back, presidential contender John Kasich opined, “I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them.” That such a statement need be made — and that it was said so lukewarmly — indicates we’ve already taken the first step toward just such coercion. Yet the main point is that the position reflects fuzzy thinking.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course, the wording informs that this constrains only Congress — the federal government’s lawmaking body — not state governments. But since the “Theory of Incorporation” (a judge-spawned rationalization) has applied the above to the states and, more significantly for the principled, since most if not all state constitutions offer the same religious protections, this isn’t relevant to our discussion here.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Nathan Deal, governor of Georgia, says this can’t happen.
Sounds like self defense against the homo assault would be in order.
Our minister decided many years ago that he would not perform any weddings after beginning to see the writing on the wall. The church board decided shortly thereafter that they would not allow the church to be used for any type of community events.
Words mean things.
Problem solved.
FReegards!
Eh? That would be as absurd as forcing a Catholic charity to pay for abortions!
Progressives celebrate the "civil right movement" as their great victory and they are right about that - it caused the ascendency of the state over the individual.
This morning C-SPAN re-ran a talk George Will gave at the University of Illinois last month. I realize a lot of people on this forum have a low opinion of Will but it was a very good talk--ostensibly about Lincoln's reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 but ranging widely. He traced a lot of the bad developments to the Progressive Era and even further back to the "Slaughterhouse" decision of 1873. The courts have allowed cartels to deprive people not in the cartel of fundamental rights.
Two examples from Louisiana were (1) a black woman who had a talent for flower arrangements and was selling them through a grocery store until a state regulatory commission forced her to stop because she lacked a license for flower arranging (and didn't have the ability to get a license), so she died in poverty and (2) the case of the monastery that wanted to sell plain wooden caskets but was prevented by a regulatory agency (9 or 10 members of which were funeral directors) which requires anyone in the state who wants to sell caskets to earn 30 hours of credit to learn embalming and serve a year's apprenticeship--the monks had no desire to operate a funeral home or practice embalming, just to sell the caskets. This is what is called "rent seeking" and it is very widespread thanks to the courts.
The Catholic Church never has done a gay wedding in 2000 years. Don’t think it will any time in the near future either.
Actually, churches could be compelled to do gay weddings, or loose their tax exempt status. The result could be that churches will be out of the wedding business, and just provide for “wedding celebrations”, where the couple will get their licenses thru a civil process, and only exchange vows in church as part of a “celebration”, where the pastor / priest/rabbi does not sign the license.
For those states that outlaw “sham weddings”, such a “celebration” here would not be one any more than re-stating ones vows, which is commonly done.
And before you flame, I’m not saying I like or approve of this “evolution” of church weddings.
Giving up the tax-exempt status will be the next move against churches. This will be driven by the homosexual crowd plus the local government who wants the tax money.
"The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course, the wording informs that this constrains only Congress — the federal government’s lawmaking body — not state governments [emphasis added]. But since the “Theory of Incorporation” (a judge-spawned rationalization) has applied the above to the states and, more significantly for the principled, since most if not all state constitutions offer the same religious protections, this isn’t relevant to our discussion here."
Regarding the, “not state governments” language above, it’s astonishing that the article did not mention the following clause emphasized below in the 14th Amendment (14A), the clause limiting the state governments concerning constitutional rights.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that 14A now limits the states with respect to regulating all constitutionally enumerated rights, whereas Congress is prohibited from regulating 1st Amendment-protected rights.
Also, regarding tho so-called, “theory of incorporation,” please note the following. The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that 14A applies all constitutionally enumerated personal protections to the states, not just those listed in the Bill of Rights. So I surmise that the Court’s theory of incorporation is a myth concocted by some bored justices.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (See top half of 2nd column.)
Noting that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT rights, we’re seeing the high cost of low-information citizens with religious convictions not knowing their 14A protections.
More specifically, misguided, low-information, pro-gay activist state officials are wrongly using non-constitutionally enumerated gay “rights” to trump constitutionally enumerated rights, 1st Amendment-protected freedoms of religious express and speech in these cases.
The most disturbing part of what’s happening currently is the fact that the court has ordered mandatory “re-education” for those who ran the bakery.
I used to believe that sort of thing would only happen in a banana republic, or a country with an authoritarian government.
Oh, I guess it is after all.
Mark
Hillary has said as much, as far as people having to “rethink” their religious beliefs.
Mark
What if they push this idea, and sue the Catholic Church for refusing to marry a "gay" couple. Will the Catholic Church have to forego any marriages, because they won't marry "gays"?
Well, they used to; I'm not sure that they do any more. Look at what has happened to the word "gay". Used to mean lighthearted and happy.
Sacrament of Baptism
Sacrament of the Eucharist
Sacrament of Confirmation
Sacrament of Penance,
Sacrament of Matrimony,
Sacrament of Extremeunction or Anointing of the Sick,
Sacrament of Holy Orders
Since adaption of a baby has nothing to do with the sacraments there is nothing the Catholic church can do, but on the other hand marriage between a man and a woman is one of the seven sacraments the Catholic church can not be forced to marry 2 people of the same sex
You got.
Think that day will never come? Who would have thought 30-50 years ago bakeries would be threatened with prison for not baking a wedding cake for homos? Or that there would be homosexual "marriages" period?
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.