Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, writes about the Washington State marriage redefinition bill:
...What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. Many, if not most churches, will rent their facilities to members of the public who want to use the church building to get married. Most churches will generally ensure that the people who are using the facilities are not going to use them in a way that is inconsistent with the church’s religious faith and mission. But the State of Washington is considering forcing churches to open their sanctuaries to same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.
... All of this might sound surprising and troubling – and it is. But for those who understand the inherent and unavoidable conflict between the radical homosexual agenda and religious freedom, the Washington Legislature’s bill and the New Jersey church case are simply sad reminders that we face a culture and a society increasingly willing to trample religious freedom in the name of sexual liberty.
... It’s not too late to stop this radical attack on religious freedom. As one court put it, the freedom of religion contained in the First Amendment is our “first freedom.” The Washington State Legislators in favor of SB 6239 need to be reminded of this fact by a vocal populace that is tired of having sexual liberty foisted on society at the expense of religious freedom. Speak Up now before it is too late. And stand with ADF as we fight these battles in New Jersey and elsewhere.
34 Comments
So if a church rents out their spaces for profit, they have to obide by non-discrimination laws? What a shocker!
Other than Christians, to whom would you rent out your Church? Atheists?, Muslims?, Buddhists?, Jews?
If you thinks that's bad, wait 'til they start forcing the government schools to teach your kids about how same-sex relationships are the just like opposite sex relationships, and you, the parent, have no recourse to opt your child out of that teaching.
Parents need to understand that homosexuality is learned behavior, and that if they encourage the teaching of homosexuality in schools by looking the other way at same-sex marriage, they increase the chances that their own children are going to adopt a homosexual lifestyle and all of the goodies (like HIV/AIDS. oral HPV, and other STDs epidemic in that population) that come with it.
We've seen it happen in California, and the parents are now powerless to protect their own children from the amoral teaching of their government. People with Libertarian, laissez-faire attitudes are vulnerable to the tyranny of those who will fight to take their rights away. Wake up people.
Sorry, but public accommodation laws in many areas are quit clear. If you intend to rent for profit, you have acknowledged that ceremonies that conflict with your beliefs will happen. On another note.., "radical homosexual agenda?" that's hardly language used in court, in fact it's quite unprofessional. Quite frankly, it's petty fear mongering.
Non-discrimination laws must be amended to make clear they do not protect conduct.The whole "gay" mentality purports that by being a member of the group constituted by misusing a synonym for "happy" to describe one's bizarre sexual philosophy and self-image,one acquires the right to engage in certain conduct with impunity...but there can be no exception based on self-identification from public law or private policy concerning conduct!
We have to take away judges' ability to get this wrong.
@ Louis E.
No one is having gay sex in the church, so your "conduct" point is irrelevant. If by "conduct" you mean "getting gay married," then you could say the same thing about other types of marriages the church does not permit. But then you need to be consistent. Do you believe the church should have the right to discriminate against interfaith/non-Christian couples? You need to be consistent.
For profit? If a church is designated a “For Profit” private entity then they have the constitutional protected right to deny service to anyone for any reason - no shoes, no shirt, and no service; we reserve the right to refuse service...
If the customer has the right not to by a product than the business must have the right to refuse service. Marriage corruption supporters only like two way streets when they benefit them - kind of strange when you consider the fact they like using one way streets as two way streets.
"Sorry, but public accommodation laws in many areas are quit clear. If you intend to rent for profit, you have acknowledged that ceremonies that conflict with your beliefs will happen."
Mike J. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" don't you understand? Did you forget that we have a constitution that keeps the government from ostracising religions from civil society and forces them to support and celebrate conduct that conflict with their religious convictions?
Govenment enforced SS"M" is unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.
Louis E.
You are not here to debate marriage rights. You are hear to shout out to gays that you really dislike them for all your past published reasons. Your ignorance about the existence of the gay populous is really a head scratcher. What are you really afraid of??
Churches are, as a general rule, not-for-profit organizations. They are not, therefore, renting out space for a profit, even if they charge for the space.
Should a church have the right to refuse to solemnize an interfaith marriage if their doctrine so holds? Absolutely! Just as they are allowed to have open or closed communion as their faith tradition sees fit. Otherwise the government can dictate to the churches the parameters of ceremonial practices, totally destroying the concept or religious freedom.
A church is not a public accommodation. To treat it as such is to destroy the freedom of the churches. The Obama administration tried to treat the Hosanna Tabor Lutheran Church and School as just another school and employer, and the Supreme Court rightly and unanimously rejected that treatment as unconstitutional. There is no First Amendment protection for churches once they are treated as public accommodations.
For the government to circumscribe a church so tightly as to dictate how and whether it can use its property for the benefit of non-members of their community (including other faith traditions or members of no faith tradition) is also a violation of their First Amendment rights.
My forefathers sacrificed mightily for freedom of religion. I will not abandon what they were willing to die for.
Great point ResistSSA as this has also already happened in Massachusetts and other New England states with New York to follow.
The sodomites wish to violate one of our most basic freedoms in the Constitution. The right to make our own moral judgements about what is right and wrong. As Thomas Sowell put it when you demand that I approve of your behavior then you have trampled upon my right to make my own moral judgement.
"The Sodomites"...That's a biblical term! How original. No one is demanding that you "approve" others' behaiviors, as long as it's not in your face. If it is, then that's disrespectful. Make your "moral judgements", just be respectful to those around you whom happen to be different than you. A basic freedom in the Constitution is "the pursuit of happines" through fairness and equality under the law.
"Mike J. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" don't you understand? Did you forget that we have a constitution that keeps the government from ostracising religions from civil society and forces them to support and celebrate conduct that conflict with their religious convictions?"
Here's another great example of ignoring reality and spouting out the absurd. Really, so how is this working out for that Methodist pavilion in NJ, or the Catholic Charities in DC, Mass. and Illinois?
"What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" don't you understand? Did you forget that we have a constitution that keeps the government from ostracising religions from civil society and forces them to support and celebrate conduct that conflict with their religious convictions?"
Here's another great example of ignoring reality and spouting out the absurd. Really, so how is this working out for that Methodist pavilion in NJ, or the Catholic Charities in DC, Mass. and Illinois?
Marcos,I am here to criticize all attempts by persons of whatever sexual orientation to justify same-sex sexual activity,and this is not a matter of animosity toward any persons.If I disliked the "gays" rather than regarding them as ignorant and teachable,I wouldn't be insisting they were capable of changing their behavior and taking responsibility for their mistakes.
Spunky,churches (and other landlords) should have the right to decide for what purposes they are willing to rent out their premises.
"A basic freedom in the Constitution is "the pursuit of happines" through fairness and equality under the law."
The "pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution, genius! With all of the misinformation your side is based on, its no wonder that SS"M" has lost most court cases.
@ Louis E.
So you're against the Civil Rights Act?
Pursuing happiness by engaging in immoral behavior is a fruitless pursuit.
Marriage laws that maintain the opposite-sex requirement are fair and equal, since they make no demands on sexual orientation.
If only what poster #12 said was true. They are violating are civil rights and liberties by demanding that we approve. They are doing it in our face and in our childrens faces.
DOE,
Your walking a find line with that sexual orientation argument...
"A church is not a public accommodation." Exactly. The First Amendment is intended to protect churches, meaning the right of pastors and their congregations to worship in the manner they choose without governmental interference. But it does not protect churches' little sidelines of renting out for money facilities to the public (meaning people of other faiths or no faith. In so doing they are operating as a public business and cannot discriminate against gays or any other class of people, just as white businesses serving the public in the South could not refuse to serve black clients.
"Sodomites", heh. Bet you still call black people "Negroes", Asians "Oriental" ,Native Americans "Redskins" women "girls"...or worse. Look back at your words 50 years hence, as we do at the "N" word today, once so commonplace and casual in daily discourse...in shame and horror.
torqueflite, please show me where in the US Constitution it states that the government can ostracise churches and people of faith from civil society for exercising their religious beliefs in the manner in which you describe. Homosexuality, after all is a behavior, and cannot be compared with possessing dark skin complexion. The vast majority of blacks are insulted by such a sophmoric analogy.
Leo, the devil is in the details.
The "class of people" argument is completely bogus.The issue is the purpose for which the premises are rented.You can rent a restaurant room for private dinners but not for roller-derby practice.You can rent your ice rink but not allow bonfires.And you can rent your community hall but not allow celebrations of things you are in the business of teaching should never happen!
Well...roller derby and bonfires would destroy the premises, so they're kind of different than...never mind.
Spunky,if the restaurant doesn't want the room used for bingo or snooker,they should be entitled to specify that.You shouldn't be forced to promote what you oppose as a cost of being allowed to do business at all.
Exactly. But this is specifically saying that Churches are renting their premises out for weddings. If marriage becomes legal in Washington state, gays will be entitled to have weddings as well.
"But gay weddings are different from straight weddings!" No two weddings are the same. If businesses can discriminate based on specific practices in the wedding that are not dangerous or harmful, then they are able to discriminate against any couple. Maybe you think that's okay. But be honest about what they're really doing.
Now you could make the case that the Church has the right to discriminate because of religious reasons. But that's different from what you're saying.
Spunky,they shouldn't have to rent them out for what they don't consider to be weddings.The "specific practice" is the representation of a same-sex couple as "marrying" each other.
...There are churches who rent the churches out?
Well, that's really weird. But it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, so how would any laws about it have anything to do with their religious beliefs?
Seriously, I find it weird that there are churches who rent out the space for weddings outside of their faith... but if they're doing that, it makes sense to say that they can't choose which ones.
I wouldn't be totally against saying that they can, but it makes at least as much sense to say that they can't. And there's no reasonable argument against it.
Anybody who'd want to rent the church for a wedding is having a wedding outside of the church's beliefs--or they'd just be having it the normal way!
But seriously, if I had any say in a church doing this, I would say "No." And why do people who aren't part of the faith *want* to, anyway? Whole things seems weird to me.
@ Louis E.
But it is a wedding. They can believe the couple isn't really marrying, but they're definitely having a marriage ceremony, which is what a wedding is.
And the church can think whatever it wants, but since marriage will be legal in Washington, it will legally be a wedding because the couple will legally be getting married.
Pat,no,it does not make sense to say they can't decide to rent out their space only for certain limited purposes.They should have the freedom to decide how willing to rent out the space they are.
I will never ever allow gay couples to do anything at our church! Homosexuality and SSM are gross perversions that will come under the judgment of Almighty God, and even now that judgment is happening as evidenced by the high STD, HIV/AIDS levels in the LBGT community. But judgment will also happen in the Day of Judgment.