General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

59. Nope, they aren't.

Reply to PRB (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:33 PM

Jun 2015

And that law will not survive constitutional challenge.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Todd Starnes: ministers who don't perform gay weddings should prepare for hate crimes charges [View all] shenmue Jun 2015 OP

Of course he has not facts. This is what HE wants to happen so He can cry religious persecution. jwirr Jun 2015 #1

Like all the Catholic priests who don't marry Protestants jberryhill Jun 2015 #2

Exactly. n/t pnwmom Jun 2015 #21

Protestants, hell. There are CATHOLICs who cannot get married in a Catholic Church. Drahthaardogs Jun 2015 #92

Every single piece of legislation has exempted performance due to religious beliefs underpants Jun 2015 #3

What is so damned difficult about this? hifiguy Jun 2015 #4

It's simply maddening Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2015 #45

His hate crime comments are PRB Jun 2015 #5

Sorry, that's not how it works teenagebambam Jun 2015 #6

Both are citing religious reasons. PRB Jun 2015 #7

Sorry, if a religion chooses not to marry you, find another one ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2015 #13

Why should I do that? PRB Jun 2015 #15

Are you talking about a physical church or religion itself? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2015 #16

What do you mean PRB Jun 2015 #17

Never mind ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2015 #18

I'm just using your standard. PRB Jun 2015 #19

You do realize that the free exercise of religion is a constitutional right (First Amendment) Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #22

A business is not protected by the consitution? PRB Jun 2015 #38

I happen to be an attorney. Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #52

Okay, your position helps. PRB Jun 2015 #89

Nope. jeff47 Jun 2015 #56

The constitution is the law of the land. PRB Jun 2015 #58

And the Constitution says churches and private clubs get to choose their members jeff47 Jun 2015 #62

YOu don't get the part about freedom of religion being a part of the Constitution do you? onenote Jun 2015 #63

That was a simple and clear summation of the case law and legal position, Yo_Mama Jun 2015 #88

Yes, I know how the first amendment reads. PRB Jun 2015 #90

Okay, but common sense should tell you that there's a reason that this dividing line exists. Yo_Mama Jun 2015 #93

I don't mean to be rude either, PRB Jun 2015 #94

It is about time that the Supreme Court recognized marriage equality for all TeddyR Jun 2015 #97

Lol, no jberryhill Jun 2015 #24

Nobody PRB Jun 2015 #37

Makes no difference hack89 Jun 2015 #39

If the are doing it PRB Jun 2015 #40

I think you will find that it makes no difference in the eyes of the law hack89 Jun 2015 #41

The church or religion PRB Jun 2015 #42

The government will never do (nor should they do) what you desire hack89 Jun 2015 #44

What do you mean should? PRB Jun 2015 #50

This is settled case law hack89 Jun 2015 #54

It still doesn't matter jberryhill Jun 2015 #46

I am talking about them already offering this service. PRB Jun 2015 #49

It is 100% legal discrimination. jeff47 Jun 2015 #57

Free to protest? PRB Jun 2015 #60

Protest is your only option. jeff47 Jun 2015 #65

A whites only church? PRB Jun 2015 #77

Yes, it does cover that. jeff47 Jun 2015 #96

They are not abiding by everything in the church, Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #66

Nobody is telling PRB Jun 2015 #67

The tax exempt status is specifically BECAUSE it is a religious entity. Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #69

That was in 1970. PRB Jun 2015 #74

And Brown v. Board of Education was in 1952. Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #81

Brown was 1954. PRB Jun 2015 #83

It's not separate but equal, Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #86

Sorry, I should not have PRB Jun 2015 #95

They are tax exempt because they are non-profit jberryhill Jun 2015 #72

The Catholic Church is non-profit? PRB Jun 2015 #76

Go ahead and file the suit jberryhill Jun 2015 #71

My beliefs? PRB Jun 2015 #82

Taking these in order.. jberryhill Jun 2015 #87

Okay, you're an attorney too. PRB Jun 2015 #91

I dunno.... Julia could make baking a cake an exercise in religious Ecstasy. Raster Jun 2015 #85

Its not a "loophole". former9thward Jun 2015 #73

The first amendment is a single sentence PRB Jun 2015 #75

No there is not. former9thward Jun 2015 #78

There's not more to it? PRB Jun 2015 #84

And yet ministers charge for weddings and funerals... Lars39 Jun 2015 #9

Bakers also charge for their services. PRB Jun 2015 #10

Actaully, most ministers (none that I know of) charge for these services. ladyVet Jun 2015 #29

Hang around some SB preachers. Lars39 Jun 2015 #32

Whoa! NutmegYankee Jun 2015 #27

Someone asked earlier PRB Jun 2015 #36

A magistrate is a totally different thing than a minister. NutmegYankee Jun 2015 #43

If a church has tax exempt status, PRB Jun 2015 #51

Facepalm. NutmegYankee Jun 2015 #55

Ehhhh, actually, seeing as how a minister's job is kinda in the religion biz, Arkana Jun 2015 #47

So the North Carolina magistrates are not in the religious business? PRB Jun 2015 #48

Nope, they aren't. jeff47 Jun 2015 #59

If they're doing the same thing PRB Jun 2015 #61

They aren't doing the same thing as a church. jeff47 Jun 2015 #64

The courts have long given wide latitude to ministers and churches when it comes to determining who LanternWaste Jun 2015 #53

methinks they're feeling a bit guilty for charging for weddings and funerals Lars39 Jun 2015 #8

Speaking as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California FrodosPet Jun 2015 #11

the irony is that only one state actually did tell ministers who to marry dsc Jun 2015 #12

That is the law in all states. Ministers cannot break the law, anymore than anyone else can. ladyVet Jun 2015 #30

Correct. In most states the law was not written or interpreted that way, Ms. Toad Jun 2015 #68

Hate Crimes charges? Fuck that noise. MrScorpio Jun 2015 #14

I went to High School in EastTN with a Todd Starnes... wonder if he is the same guy?? I seem to Ghost in the Machine Jun 2015 #20

You mean like the rabbi who made it clear that he would never officiate at our wedding... Hekate Jun 2015 #23

Rubbish. They're all going to be rounded up in Jade Helm 15 and detained in empty Wal-Marts. tanyev Jun 2015 #25

They will be placed in FEMA trailers? Dirty Socialist Jun 2015 #26

Hey! underpants Jun 2015 #28

You are useless as an undercover operative. Report to your cell leader immediately! nt ladyVet Jun 2015 #31

I thought we were using the FEMA camps? nt msanthrope Jun 2015 #34

You're right. The Wal-Marts are for tunnels and food distribution, tanyev Jun 2015 #35

And forced to wear lingerie. Beanies and whips too. randys1 Jun 2015 #79

Just like all those ministers charged for refusing to do inter-racial weddings csziggy Jun 2015 #33

Boy they keep making it up as they go along - LiberalElite Jun 2015 #70

Fox is a terrorist organization, very dangerous, very deadly. randys1 Jun 2015 #80