AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

http://www.kpho.com/story/26622287/church-boots-aa-group-over-gay-weddings

HYPERKLINK has full story

snip

"As I am sure you are aware, God's church, his written word, and its values and principles have come under a constant and aggressive attack from the homosexual and lesbian community," the letter begins, before going on to say that "Churches and Christian businesses alike, across our nation, are being forced, by our legal system, to accommodate these groups in the use of their buildings/facilities to perform marriage ceremonies, receptions, etc." due to a court decision they say was based on the fact the churches and business were accepting and accommodating other public entities, and therefore must also accommodate the homosexual and lesbian community."

once again, the intended consequences as those living the homosexual life try to force their beliefs and lifestyle upon others.

This church is being proactive as it realizes that the homosexuals WILL use the govt to force the church to perform homosexual rituals.

I am saddened that a chosen sexual lifestyle is given preferential treatment over religion.

 

This is exactly why I don't support anything LGBT.

At every turn you have some liberal overlord crying about "equality", but what they don't tell is that their definition of the word is truly the direct antithesis of equality.

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) did we go wrong as a country to end up in a state of tyranny where a 3% abnormality dictates life for the other 97%?

 

You are incorrect in your conclusion and the article points that out.

 

that is an excellent question.

It is sad that out of fear, and oppression by the govt, that a church is forced to take such action.

 

That's where I pointed out your inaccuracy. The church wasn't forced into it. They did it of their own volition.

 

they acted proactively because of how the govt is forcing the acceptance of homosexual sex upon Christians

 

The church in NJ was forced to do so. And there has been a couple other examples across the US where government has attempted to institute legislation that would require it. That shows it's not a one time thing and that it will continue to happen until the homosexuals get their way.

 

There is going to be a big backlash against the homosexual community soon.

Not in a violent way but in a rejection of their actions.

 

This was discussed in the op source:

Key word there is "public". You cannot be given a special tax exempt status for renting out your facility to the public and then deny the public the ability to rent it. I know the bias with you fellas is strong against homosexuals but try to be a little intellectually honest.

What backlash do you foresee happening? A few vocal gay people do not represent all homosexuals anymore than a few skin heads represent all white people -- Public opinion is trending towards approval, the courts are ruling in favor of equal rights in just about every jurisdiction, churches are performing same sex marriages of their own fruition. The church did this out of paranoia, not because of any legal or rational reason.


Please show one example of a church being forced to sanction a same sex marriage in the United States, just one.
I don't agree with everything the homosexual activists push for and I agree with even less of what the government pushes for but these arguments and subsequent circle-jerks by the anti-gay crowd are just getting ridiculous.

 

Funny how a church was force...of its own volition.

Keep trying.

 

The church took the only path it could. As more people begin to have their lives affected due to a leftist homosexual-lifestyle agenda, good, decent people will say that enough is enough and demand that homosexuals get no more special consideration.

It's a sexual lifestyle and deserves no extra consideration

 

I do enjoy watching the leftists trying to justify the unjustifiable. If you wait until the mighty government sues you, you'll either kneel in obedience or go bankrupt paying lawyers. That's one of the few choices the leftists will allow you to make.

But, it's not just about gays. If you allow AA to rent your meeting rooms then you'd have to allow a Satanist group to rent the rooms, the Hells Angels to rent the rooms, and the local Democrats to rent the rooms. Where would it all end?

If I were connected to a church I don't know which I'd prefer, a group of gays or a group of drunks.

 

Another lying anti-gay rant. Why does this continue to be allowed to be vomited all over the board????

- - - Updated - - -

No that is a lie and the article you post admits that. Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

You want to talk about being intellectually dishonest? What was the point of the homosexuals lawsuit in the first place? Were the homosexuals pissed off that the church facility had been granted a tax exemption and as such they thought it was unfair that they weren't allowed to use it? Absolutely not. The homosexuals were pissed off that there was a facility that had allowed everybody else except for homosexuals to have their marriage ceremony in it. And they wanted to use it. In the original complaint and the original story that was written, nothing about their tax exempt status was used to justify the homosexuals position. The Judge USED their tax exempt status to justify his ruling in favor of the homosexuals but that was NOT the point of the lawsuit. The point of the lawsuit is that if a church is renting their facility to anybody else, that the homosexuals feel as though the church must also rent to them otherwise they want it to be considered unconstitutional.

So if anyone is being dishonest here it is you. You're attempting to make the homosexuals appear as though they just wanted to make sure that because of the tax exempt status of the church facility that anybody would be allowed to use it. And that was NOT the point of the homosexuals lawsuit.

To further illustrate this point, this is not a solitary incident. NJ may have the only case that's ruled on it but there have been at least two attempts to put legislation in around the country to FORCE churches to rent their facilities to homosexuals for whatever purpose if they also rent that facility to people outside of their congregation.

One would have to be EXCEEDINGLY naïve to believe that these are going to be the first and last examples of homosexuals attempting to force churches to allow them to marry in their facility. These were simply the first shots across the bow... they haven't even started to force their ideology on others yet.

 

You're correct. No extra consideration. Just the same consideration the rest of us get.

 

Really? The rest of us are legally able to force our beliefs on other religions? I must have missed that part.

 

They were hazarding a guess. The government, and rightfully so, is trying to enforce non-discrimination. Churches, in the sanctity of the own bigotry, will be safe to practice what they wish.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me about the case in NJ, as well as those other cases.

 

What would you like to know? A homosexual couple wanted to use a facility that was owned by a church to have their wedding. The church told them that they wouldn't rent to the homosexual couple because they're homosexual and it contradicted their values and beliefs. The homosexual couple got pissed off and said they'd sue them. They did sue them. The judge then used the tax exempt status of the facility to justify ruling for the homosexuals.

 

It's obvious you're missing a great deal. You open your facility to the general public, that's exactly what it means. It then becomes the realm of the secular world. Your beliefs and your religious practices are still intact. You don't have to sanction any marriage. But you guys can't seem to recognize that. Does religion blind you that much?

- - - Updated - - -

From the article, it sounds like their tax exempt status was based on a secular exemption. Is that not correct?

 

You´re still here, Karma, so that speaks volumes about the boards attitude. I don´t know why you continue to lie and distort but if the powers that be don´t care, I don´t.

 

Actually yes they are able to do so and have been for years. Hence why they can rent out portions of their facilities to groups like the boy scouts or basketball leagues for games, or food drives or charities or weddings or for any number reasons without having to allow people who go against their beliefs to rent it.

But that was not the point of the lawsuit. The homosexuals had NO idea that the building had a tax exempt status. The homosexuals simply wanted to make sure that if someone else was able to use the facility then they should be able to as well.

And that has nothing to do with the other legislation that was introduced in other states.

 

you are wrong it is owned by these guys:

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a ministry organization whose mission is to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal in a Christian seaside setting. Centrally located on the Jersey Shore, Ocean Grove is within two hours of both New York City and Philadelphia. Founded in 1869, the Camp Meeting continues to put on a vibrant program of preaching, teaching and celebration throughout the summer months. More recently, the Camp Meeting has also been providing more year-round activities.

Those activities include craft fairs and whiffle ball tournements. While they have church they are not one. They are a public enterprise and thus have to follow the laws of the state. Now we can discuss where you think the line is drawn for this kind of enterprise but I think your idea that a church is being forced to conduct a gay wedding is absurd.

 

Domer: "It's obvious you're missing a great deal. You open your facility to the general public, that's exactly what it means. It then becomes the realm of the secular world. Your beliefs and your religious practices are still intact. You don't have to sanction any marriage. But you guys can't seem to recognize that. Does religion blind you that much?"

That's right. So, if you have a restaurant and you let a family have a section for grandmother's birthday then you have to let NAMBLA or the Leathermen have that section to meet, too. That's the rule in LibWorld. Individuals have no rights. It's the hive that rules...as long as the leftists are running the hive.

My father was sued by a so-called civil rights group for refusing to rent a room to a black man. For three years my father my father spend thousands fighting the "civil rights group". Of course, the "civil rights group" kept pointing out to my father that it would be cheaper for him to simply pay them to go away. He didn't. When he submitted a long list of witnesses the "civil rights group" squealed. "There are no witnesses except the victim, the racist owner, and his wife." My father's lawyer responded, "The other names are black people who were staying in the motel." It was simply a racket to shake down business people.

The lawyers don't help us any more than the government does.

 

I never stated they would be forced to conduct a gay wedding. The point is that they would be forced to rent their facility to homosexuals FOR a gay wedding... first of all.

Second, their formal name is, “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” Whether YOU consider them a church or not is irrelevant.

 

YES...Out of fear and ignorance. But the Government did not force the Church to do anything.