Redstate

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

who after going out me wanted to sue...=)

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

However, I'm not so sure that "the tide of support" will shift against gay marriage from these lawsuits. Just read the way that these cases are being framed in the press, with the church being the heavies; if anything, the mainline churches will react as they typically do (if someone doesn't like us, we must be something wrong to have upset them) and continue to appease as the iceberg they are standing on continues to melt.

The problem is that the tide of public opinion is shifting away from public debate/legislation and instead impatiently growing increasingly desirous of court mandates (which is a short-cut from messy debate and winning hearts and minds - much easier to impose instead). This is a larger issue than which side wins on the gay marriage issue.

For example, if California voters reject the marriage initiative in November, that at least will answer the question of popular opinion. I still disagree with the reasoning behind the court's decision, but at least we will have had a second vote that will override the previous initiative result and ratify acceptance of gay marriage via popular vote.

What I am concerned about, though, is the likelihood that, should the constitutional amendment pass on, the CA courts will decide to override the amendment, creating new grounds to mandate why it cannot be allow to stand.

Or more insidiously, the courts may decide to suspend the initiative from going into effect while it takes years to decide on court challenges to the law, which will essential amount to court-based nullification. We may even ultimately see the classic chutzpah "horse left the barn" decision, where the court at some point rules that the complications of allowing the amendment to go into effect make such action untenable (the complications having been created by the court in the first place).

That is, the problem isn't court-mandated gay marriage per se; it's rather what, being emboldened by the populace's abdication of power to them, unbridled courts will do with this power in other realms and the temptation to aggrandize their power and the areas into which they will intrude. We already see this with the courts wanting to micromanage the conduct of war and military actions in the latest SCOTUS decisions; wait until they create new fundamental rights by dicta that will effectively abrogate Constitutional protections - the downward trajectory of totalitarianism that is waiting in the wings and ready to come on the stage.

And Rightly So!

I'm all for gay marriage, but if a private place says "you can't get married here", then that's their right. If someone wants to get married in my house and I tell them to eff off, I don't expect the court to force me to allow them to.

Losing tax-exemption is nothing compared to losing one's livelihood or life, which is what large numbers of our fellow-Christians face in other parts of the world. That doesn't mean that we don't seek to preserve our precious freedoms - just that it's not a divine entitlement.

And Rightly So!

by my brother

http://www.amazon.com/Bonhoeffer-Speaks-Today-Following-Jesus/dp/0805432...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Answer: importation of bibles is illegal. In China, anything beyond a personal bible will be seized. in Saudi Arabia, I believe that you can't even bring that.

If you get caught smuggling a decent quantity of bibles, you will be locked up.

Nonetheless, bibles are being smuggled in.

sentence. In many Muslim countries, it is a capital crime to convert to Christianity. In Africa, for example Sudan, there is wholesale slaughter of Christians. It's definitely tougher in many places for Christians. Of course, there are several places where being a member of any religious minority can be dangerous.

and for Muslim apostates, it means reconsideration or death.

I am not talking about street violence here. I am talking courts enforcing laws to that effect.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had issues relating to the sentencing of apostates.

Loss of the privileges we now have in this country will only be the first step toward "all the above". Pastors will be imprisoned for preaching out against immorality. Property will be confiscated and church members will lose the freedom to gather except as prescribed by the government. Sounds like present day China, but we aren't as far from that model as some would think.

Actually, I've had pastors say it would be a good thing for the church to lose tax exempt and non profit status because then some of the freeloaders would jump ship because it wouldn't help their bottom line to attend and donate anymore.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

leading to the Atlanta Braves 2008 World Series victory.

remaining stages 4-7
July, August, September and October!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Sometimes your brothers in the bar are good for a laugh. Until they sue.

street, it's even funnier.

The literal translation of "lustberg" is "mountain of delight" or "delightful mountain"....

that is!

Not being one of the godly, if things don't go well at the Last Judgment, my fallback position at The Appeal is "Well, at leasn't I wasn't a freaking LAWYER!"

I wonder what would happen if a conservative christian started to sue over things like this, saying that the government is infringing on our freedom of religion, specifically the free practice thereof.

By not allowing someone to take a moral stance on homosexuality, they are (by default) forcing any and all religions to view homosexuality in a positive light.

Of course, I doubt you'd find a judge that'd put the Constitution ahead of political agendas and judicial activism.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

To the lawyers correct me if I am wrong:
But the legal theory is that churches solicit business from the general public, thus by equal protection they can't discriminate.

Yes it does make a mockery of the concept of private property. But it is the price we pay for the democrats sins of discrimination.
In effect we are now paying for the Democrats sin of racism.

rented out their facilities to non-members. If they restrict the use of their facilities to memebers of their church, I don't see how they could be viewed as a public accomodation. There is also the issue of freedom of association (how the boy scouts have excluded gays).

If that is true, than any business that deals with the public on any level cannot tell me that I am not allowed to carry in their establishment.

But, you see, some people are a little more equal than others.... and it isn't based on race...

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

(guaranteed by the Second Amendment, until the supreme court takes that away) with the right to carry it around anywhere you want to, which has never been established. In fact there are a multitude of places where you can't legally carry a gun. What's interesting though is that in some states (Texas comes to mind) unless you are expressly forbidden to carry by law or by posted owner's notice, you can absolutely carry a legal concealed weapon. It makes for some interesting posted owner's notices. ( I apologize for the minor threadjack).

Funny, when I was looking at the Second Amendment, I didn't see anything about "But this only applies on your land, in your home, hidden in your room where no one could possibly see you or hear you load your firearm or find out that you might be someone who might own a firearm."

I see a right to both KEEP (to own) and BEAR (to have, hold, transport and use)

Frankly, if a gay couple has a 'right' to get married in a church even if the church doesn't want to, then this means that the landowner has no say over what is done on their property...

If THAT is true, then no landowwner or business has a right to tell me that I cannot carry my firearm on their property, ESPECIALLY as I am a Concealed Carry permitholder in my state.

However, you won't find many arguing FOR my point, even if they'll argue in support of the homosexual couple.

Which was, of course, my point.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

HTML Help for Red Staters

is this treated as an unrestrained right (i.e. per my choice of words "carry them anywhere you want them", just as the first Amendment does not allow you to slander your neighbor, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. However, if you feel that the 2nd amendment is an unrestrained right, I suggest you demonstrate this by trying to enter a nuclear power plant carrying a concealed weapon, and make said argument to the FBI as they carry you out in handcuffs (if the security force doesn't shoot you- please no jokes about sleeping powerplant guards).

Yup. you missed the point wholly.

What I said, twice now I believe, was that if a gay couple has a right to get married at a church, even if the church doesn't want to do it, then it proves that the landowner doesn't have a right to their own property.

IF that is the case, then no business can tell me that I, as a concealed carry permitholder, cannot carry my pistol in their place of business.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

in the previous post about public accomodations. (Although we may have been posting at about the same time). I suspect that the church may have allowed their facilitieds to be used by non-members for ceremonies. If you do that, you open yourself up to being a public accomodation. If on the otherhand, the church had a policy of only allowing church members to use their facilities (which my local catholic parish does, I doubt that any court would have forced them to allow the use of their property in this fashion. I don't necessarily agree with this case, but there is existing law on public accomodations.

Ok, then any business that at ANY point did NOT have a "Gun Free Zone" sticker is not allowed to put one up now.

I don't think you're getting my point..... the homosexual community is crying 'victim!' and suing to get their will enforced.

Meanwhile, folks like myself are having our 2nd Amendment rights trampled by the same legal system.

If it applies to them, it has to apply to me as well.

Unless some people are 'more equal' than others.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

TYhis has nothing to do with the right to marry anywhere,. It had to do with the church acting as a public accomodation. I'm assuming (because I haven't seen any details indicating otherwise) that they routinely allowed various ceremonies on their property without restricting said participation to members. If you do this, to the law, you are no different than any other business and are open to anti-discrimination laws. Note that this soesn't mean that they couldn't restrict use of their property in the future by limiting said use to members. They just can't arbitrarily change said policy on the spur of the moment because they don't like the people using the facility. Hence any business even in Texas, could change their policy to exclude carrying concealed weapons by posting said policy. They just couldn't change it by telling you ,as you enter the door that "You can't carry that gun in here". There is a difference in the law. My point is for a church, if you don't want to be treated like a rental hall, don't act like one.

You'll excuse me if I don't value legal advice from someone who tried to tell me that the 2nd Amendment was only about ownership.

Private Enterprise (and yes, the church is a private enterprise) has the right to set the terms of their buildings. In this case, a homosexual couple wanted to use their space for a wedding, even though the church is against homosexual marriage.

Your view is that the church is required to do what they don't want to do because they marry heterosexual couples as well.

Your view is that the church has less of a right to their own land than an unrelated gay couple.

Ergo, you must support that I am allowed to carry my pistol anywhere I want because my right to carry supercedes land ownership related rights.

You can't have it both ways.

And yes, a businessman CAN just walk up to me and say "If you have a gun on you, you need to leave because we just decided to not allow concealed carry in our business." and I am required to leave.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

or 18 year old daughter. You might try reading what I wrote and not your assinine interpretation;

1) I did not say that the 2nd Amendment only allowed you to own a firearm. I specifically said it did not allow you to carry it anywhere you wanted to. I know this might be a bit subtle for you, but there have always been restrained rights (i.e. crying "fire" in a crowded theater). If you don't understand this, there is no use trying to converse any further.
2) If you think that a public accomodation (such as a restaurant) whether it is a private enterprise or not, can refuse service to someone because they are black or Jewish, you are ignorant of the law. A private club, however, can refuse membership or service to anyone not meeting it's requirements for membership. This is how the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from membership.
3) I in no point said that the church had to marry a gay couple because they married heterosexual couples, and I don't believe the article said they had to either. The point was about the use of a pavillion for the gay ceremony, not about whether the church had to perform the ceremony. My point is the church probably erred by renting the pavillion for other ceremonies (probably not just weddings) to non-members. This is where they would have made themselves a public accomodation and lost control of the use of the pavillion.
4) At no point did I make any statements that I support said laws, I just merely stated that said laws apply.
5) In Texas (at least up till a couple of years ago, when I inquired) had concealed carry laws that allowed anyone with a legal weapon to carry it concealed in any facilities where it wasn't illegal to carry (I.e. nuclear power plants) or where the owner had posted notices prohibiting patrons from carrying weapons. So, in Texas, a restaurant (which is considered a public accomodation) could not ask you to leav just because you were carrying a concealed weapon unless they had posted said notice.
.
Next time, read and think before posting.

1) I did not say that the 2nd Amendment only allowed you to own a firearm. I specifically said it did not allow you to carry it anywhere you wanted to. I know this might be a bit subtle for you, but there have always been restrained rights (i.e. crying "fire" in a crowded theater). If you don't understand this, there is no use trying to converse any further.

Errt. Lie. Here is what you wrote:

You're confusing the right to Own a gun
(guaranteed by the Second Amendment, until the supreme court takes that away) with the right to carry it around anywhere you want to, which has never been established.

The Second Amendment guarentees a right to Keep and Bear. You, there, stated that the Second Amendment's right is only to Keep. The right to keep and BEAR was established by the 2nd Amendment and the word 'bear' doesn't refer to the animal.

2) If you think that a public accomodation (such as a restaurant) whether it is a private enterprise or not, can refuse service to someone because they are black or Jewish, you are ignorant of the law. A private club, however, can refuse membership or service to anyone not meeting it's requirements for membership. This is how the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from membership.

Ah, this same argument... over and over... Sexual Orientation is not race. Sorry, that comparison doesn't fly.

3) I in no point said that the church had to marry a gay couple because they married heterosexual couples, and I don't believe the article said they had to either. The point was about the use of a pavillion for the gay ceremony, not about whether the church had to perform the ceremony. My point is the church probably erred by renting the pavillion for other ceremonies (probably not just weddings) to non-members. This is where they would have made themselves a public accomodation and lost control of the use of the pavillion.

Whether you agree with it or not, a landowner has a right to say what is done with its land. The church is allowed to say "No, you can't rent that space to shoot a porn." because they have a moral stance against pornography. It is their sandbox and you are celebrating those who force the sandbox owner to go away while strangers play with it in a way that the sandbox owner doesn't want. To you, apparently, that is justice.

4) At no point did I make any statements that I support said laws, I just merely stated that said laws apply.

By not calling them out for the horrible laws that they are, you are enabling their continued action.

5) In Texas (at least up till a couple of years ago, when I inquired) had concealed carry laws that allowed anyone with a legal weapon to carry it concealed in any facilities where it wasn't illegal to carry (I.e. nuclear power plants) or where the owner had posted notices prohibiting patrons from carrying weapons. So, in Texas, a restaurant (which is considered a public accomodation) could not ask you to leav just because you were carrying a concealed weapon unless they had posted said notice.

You know that we have 49 other states, right? Also, Texas has a concealed carry permit system. Without a concealed carry permit, you can't go walking around with a concealed weapon.

And yes, they are allowed to walk up and say "we've decided we don't want people carrying in here, even though we might have in the past. You need to leave."

Why? because they own the place and we have things called property rights.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

you're commenting on:

1) What I wrote originally:

You're confusing the right to Own a gun
(guaranteed by the Second Amendment, until the supreme court takes that away) with the right to carry it around anywhere you want to, which has never been established.

What I said I wrote:

1) I did not say that the 2nd Amendment only allowed you to own a firearm. I specifically said it did not allow you to carry it anywhere you wanted to. I know this might be a bit subtle for you, but there have always been restrained rights (i.e. crying "fire" in a crowded theater).

You're response: Errt. Lie.

Quite a logical jump since my statements were essentially identical. Note the key phrase is both paragraphs "carry it around anywhere you want to". The point was you're confusing rights of ownership with rights of use, note I did not say you could not carry the gun (i.e. bear arms). I specifically said you could not carry it anywhere you wanted to. ( My example: try to carry one concealed or otherwise into a nuclear power plant, regardless of your state issued concealed carry permit)

2. I wrote:

) If you think that a public accomodation (such as a restaurant) whether it is a private enterprise or not, can refuse service to someone because they are black or Jewish, you are ignorant of the law. A private club, however, can refuse membership or service to anyone not meeting it's requirements for membership. This is how the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from membership.
.
Your response:

"Ah, this same argument... over and over... Sexual Orientation is not race. Sorry, that comparison doesn't fly."

The problem is that in a number of states, and I'm guessing based on the article that New Jersey is one, that sexual orientation is a protected category similar to race, religion and gender. WE may not like it, but it is and the courts will see it that way. Therefore, no you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in those jurisdictions.
.
Point 3 I said:

.
3) I in no point said that the church had to marry a gay couple because they married heterosexual couples, and I don't believe the article said they had to either. The point was about the use of a pavillion for the gay ceremony, not about whether the church had to perform the ceremony. My point is the church probably erred by renting the pavillion for other ceremonies (probably not just weddings) to non-members. This is where they would have made themselves a public accomodation and lost control of the use of the pavillion.
.
You said;
"Whether you agree with it or not, a landowner has a right to say what is done with its land. The church is allowed to say "No, you can't rent that space to shoot a porn." because they have a moral stance against pornography. It is their sandbox and you are celebrating those who force the sandbox owner to go away while strangers play with it in a way that the sandbox owner doesn't want. To you, apparently, that is justice."
.
You absolutely have a right to say what is done on your land as long as it's private use and not illegal. However, as soon as you make your land a public accomodation, you get stuck with the local rules (anti-discrimination statutes) and may lose control over who uses the facility. Your example, however, is slightly ridiculous for the following reasons 1) Pornographers are not a protected class, so you could probably discriminate against them all you want, (although, if it were a gay pornographer... never mind, stupid attempt at humor) and 2) Filming pornography is not the service for which you were providing the public accomodation.
.
4) I wrote:

4) At no point did I make any statements that I support said laws, I just merely stated that said laws apply.
.
you responded:
"By not calling them out for the horrible laws that they are, you are enabling their continued action."
.
This is a ridiculous assertion on it's own face. Merely trying to explain how a law is applied and interpreted does not enable the law. This law was enacted in New Jersey, by their democratically ( and in New Jersey, That is literal) elected representatives. You can like or dislike it. You can even scream about it, but unless you live in New Jeasey and can vote there, ther's nothing you or I can do about it.
.
5. I wrote:
.
5) In Texas (at least up till a couple of years ago, when I inquired) had concealed carry laws that allowed anyone with a legal weapon to carry it concealed in any facilities where it wasn't illegal to carry (I.e. nuclear power plants) or where the owner had posted notices prohibiting patrons from carrying weapons. So, in Texas, a restaurant (which is considered a public accomodation) could not ask you to leav just because you were carrying a concealed weapon unless they had posted said notice.
.
You Responded:
.
"You know that we have 49 other states, right? Also, Texas has a concealed carry permit system. Without a concealed carry permit, you can't go walking around with a concealed weapon.

And yes, they are allowed to walk up and say "we've decided we don't want people carrying in here, even though we might have in the past. You need to leave."

Why? because they own the place and we have things called property rights."
.
I really don't care what other states besides Texas do, because Texas was my example. Again the point here is that as a property owner, you limit your right to exclude people from your establishment when you become a public accomodation. That is why, at the time I'm referring to, most restaurants posted notices stating that no firearms were allowed on the premises, because otherwise they could not legally exclude them since Texas was a right to carry state with "Shall Issue" laws.
.

And its prohibition against state censorship or involvement in the practice of religion.
Just a roadbump to our lefty friends.

Therefore we must abandon what is said in the Constitution and we must interpret it correctly... that is to say, we need to read it as if it says what the Fathers would surely have said had they foreseen these unforeseeable circumstances.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Well, the Constitution is just a living document anyway, right?

*evil grin*

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Comparisons between Christians going to the courts for redress with Muslims in Canada doing the Human Rights Courts.

From there, the MSM would probably find some quotes regarding sins from the "Right" and how they aren't that bad. "Oh, politician did what? How dare you judge another person? Don't you know what Christ said to the crowd wishing to stone the woman caught in adultery?" and follow that up with a similar sin from a politician from the "Left" and find a quote regarding the politican about how Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more and how that was the real point of the story.

They'd probably run a story quoting Christians (wearing nice clothing, sitting in a nice chair in a nice office) saying stuff like "we're being persecuted" and immediately follow that with a picture of a gay guy who was beaten to death a few years prior.

I imagine a quick package (3-5 minutes) could be put together to hit all of those points by a somewhat talented news editor in less than two business days.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I hope people use it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I posted above that I am taking your side on this. I agree that this is an abuse and an infringement on the rights of religious organizations and religious people.

I read your comment and it heartened me. Thanks.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Jeez louise.

I think that the church has every right in the world to say "we don't serve your kind". I think that the lawyer is being spectacularly jerky on this.

I think that any decent reading of the First Amendment would say that Freedom of Religion would allow for churches to say "Sorry, we only provide this service to people who meet the following list of criteria... but if you'd like, we can point you down the street to McChurchy's, they marry anybody who shows up with cash in hand. You can even get an Elvis impersonator!" (There might be coverage for this under the whole "Freedom Of Assembly" thing as well.)

On top of even *THAT*, I think that these guys are doing harm to their own cause because if there is *ANYTHING* that will get someone on the fence when it comes to gay marriage to say "you know what, no way", it's a couple of gay guys suing a local church for discrimination when the gay guys had never shown up for a single service at that church, said that they weren't willing to go through the marriage counselling the pastor gives to all folks wanting to get married, and when McChurchy's down the street will marry anybody who shows up with cash in hand.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

will be popping up on every corner. Let them all sue ,maybe the courts will get tired of all the suits and just let Kennedy and his cronies make up a new law.
For what reason would you pursue the point of celebrating the happiest day of your life where you are not wanted?

They don't need the chapels if they continue to sue to force churches to marry them.

Frankly, I have a feeling this has nothing to do with being allowed to get hitched as much as to stick it in the eye of Christianity.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Is that people don't get married all that often.

I mean, not often enough to make a business out of it and solely that. Churches do the marriage thing, but they also do the Sunday Morning thing, the Sunday Evening thing, the Wednesday Evening thing, and so on and so forth.

If the church next door only did business when there was a wedding, it'd be open a handful of days a year.

What this is strikes me as a deliberate thumb in the eye. "You people have been reviling us for decades and now it's our turn to revile you!" is probably the attitude they have. "We never should have said that we'd be okay with civil unions!" is probably the attitude that will spring up in response.

Eventually folks might learn that the midpoint between having a right and not having a right is...

not having a right.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The rest I agree with you on.

My objection to laws against pornography is purely on a federal level. In Oklahoma, porn is basically illegal (no pictures of penetration allowed) and that's fine with me; I don't live in Oklahoma (any more, anyways). We don't need federal laws against pornography or drugs any more than we need federal laws against prostitution; let the states handle it, period. That's federalism at work.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

"the people who are constantly lecturing me when I propose laws proscribing Jihad? who recite Voltaire in their sleep? who scoff at any prediction that gay marriage will overthrow religious liberty? who are ready to go to the mat to protect the vilest pornography of First Amendment grounds?"

So, after goodness knows how many exceptions to The First Amendment you've said exist... you are arguing that The First Amendment would totally not make an exception when it's your ox being gored?

After you say "Freedom of speech doesn't include *THIS* or freedom of worship doesn't include *THAT*..." you find yourself surprised that people are saying "Freedom of speech doesn't include *THIS* or freedom of worship doesn't include *THAT*..." back at you?

The compromise position between having a right and not having a right is not having the right.

If you've been arguing for a compromise position (by your own admission)... why are you surprised that others argue for compromises that you find unpleasant?

This is why we Libertines argue for extreme cases... because when you "Reasonable" people ask for "Reasonable" exceptions to Liberty... you'll find the camel ends up in the tent and you're shivering outside wondering what happened.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I think they would have been silent, and there would not have been a lawsuit, and we never would have heard about it.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

You might see a collision between two "protected groups" whose overriding rights come into conflict.

But in practice, I'm quite sure the gay couple would back off. I don't have the time to outline the scenario, but I think most of us can figure it out on their own.

Sort of like the Democratic primary...

And Rightly So!

In that gay couple was able to obtain forcible entry and use despite the unwillingness of the target.

The pastor and congregation apparently this wasn't an appropriate use of the facility. That doing so was tantamount of having their church bless a marriage that under no circumstances it would.

So this would be the legal rape of a church congregation.

You're operating under the assumption that the landowner has any rights to the use of their property.

I'm joking, of course.... but there is a hint of seriousness in it.

One just has to crack open a Zoning Code book to see the way that even city governments have more of a right to your land than you.

You want to add a deck onto the back of your house in far too many jurisdictions and you have to go through ALOT of approvals and have to purchase permits to be allowed to do something on your own property that affects no one but yourself.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Ocean Grove is a seaside Methodist resort. By being a place where the 'the gay community' felt comfortable enough to 'revive' that Methodist establishment, Ocean Grove, whether through overt support or silence or some combination thereof, consented to the integration of 'the gay community' into the fabric of the church establishment. I.e., the leaders of Ocean Grove who are taking this 'theological' stand at this point really ought to have done so previously such that the homosexual couple never would have thought it appropriate to request the use of the pavilion.

When a woman leads a guy on right up to the point of penetration it's a tough thing to call it rape.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

When a woman leads a guy on right up to the point of penetration it's a tough thing to call it rape.

And yet it is still done, and not uncommonly.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

(Risking a sort-of-relevant tangent...)

Is that sort of thing prosecutable as rape or would the court toss it?

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

The rule of thumb is "No mean No, it doesn't matter when it is said."

Thankfully I am not a lawyer, or the disgrace that our Judicial System has become would have caused me to, long ago, suffer from head explosion.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

to prove to a jury, but there is no exception in the law that says if someone leads you on, you have a short window of opprotunity to rape them.

The questions to be answered are:

(1) Did the victim consent?

(2) Did the person know or have reason to know of the last second decision to withhold consent.

Without (1) there is no rape.
Without (2) there is insufficient criminal intent to convicted of the crime of rape?

Of course rape is rape and if either partner withdraws consent the act must cease. that wasn't my question. I just don't follow criminal proceedings well enough to know what is prosecuted as rape.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

I recall reading that at least some courts have ruled that the woman can withdraw consent at any time - and in some penetrations, withdraw consent even after penetration - essentially any time before the end.

However, since rape is a matter of state law, there wouldn't be a unitary standard in the U.S. You certainly can't rely on a court to toss charges, especially not in this era.

Bottom line: if you don't know your female partner well enough to know that she won't charge you with rape if you get sexually intimate with her, you'd better read up on your local statutes.

And Rightly So!

withdraw.

I must say (and I am NOT a criminal lawyer) that I am unaware of any rape cases based on consent that is withdrawn DURING penetration.

But here is what I take from it.
1. The pavilion was used to perform weddings.
2. The church performed weddings there.
3. NJ has an anti discrimination law that prevents owners of public accommodations from refusing service.

Conclusion the church had to provide the service.

This of course completely bypasses that the church provides a religious marriage not a civil marriage.

What the couple sought is not a marriage according to the church.

Thus what they were seeking was to force the church to provide a service they would not otherwise provide (A civil marriage).

Thus the court is forcing the church to rewrite its theology.

I doubt the church ever left doubt what its position was on the matter.

If it is the case that the church never performed merely a civil marriage for a heterosexual couple in that pavilion then the court is, indeed, forcing the church to do something they hadn't done and wouldn't do. But if there had been marriages in that pavilion done merely by a JP and not under religious auspices, then I maintain the church had no good reason to deny the gay couple based on the past accommodation.

I don't dispute that the church has been clear on their position about the civil union in question from the get-go, but my point is that since the church had heretofore been sufficiently vague on the question of the morality of homosexual behavior, they seem to have brought this one upon themselves to a significant degree.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

This decision will not actually increase services to gay couples, it will simply eliminate choices for all people.

So, if the Methodist Church is going to be forced to provide civil marriage to anybody that wants it (by the terms of the decision I don't believe a heterosexual couple who identifies as Jewish could be denied use of the Methodist Church for such a ceremony either - equal access and all), then the "solution" for the church is to cease to provide civil marriage to anybody. If they are only performing the Christian rite of marriage and are refusing to perform any of the civic/legal parts (mostly that means that the priest will sign a marriage license as an officiant) I'm not sure that they are really performing a "public accommodation" and are certainly doing no more than practicing their religious faith.

It will be Catholic Charities in Boston all over again - if you aren't permitted to practice your religious beliefs in the provision of this "service" then just stop providing the service to anybody. There's a big hole in adoption services in Massachusetts because the state wouldn't respect the teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe there shouldn't be a pavilion at all - at least one that is considered even remotely "open to the public."

It's sad that my profession (law) has decided to exalt rights found nowhere in the Constitution, over the ones that are clearly written down. In almost every area of law, there seems to be a daily reminder of how lawyers have willingly aided the destruction of society.

Sorry but an analogy to rape is over-the-top. Mugging, perhaps...but hardly a violation of fundamental personal integrity that rape entails.

Now if the court went beyond compelling rental and compelled the pastor (and by extension the Methodist church) to conduct the wedding as a Christian ceremony and accept the couple into the church as members in good standing, then the rape analogy might be more reasonable.

And Rightly So!

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

The similarity is that in both cases the victim is deprived of their free will and made to provide a service for their abuser by violent means.

Mugging is the merely the loss of material. If someone takes my wallet they have not fundamentally changed who or what I am.

If a woman is raped, you have taken away her self determination and control of her self. If the Church is forced to perform acts outside of their theology they have lost control over what their church is and what their community is.

Crimes of property are about acquiring property.

Rape is usually a crime of violence for the purpose establishing dominance with sex being secondary.

I think it is quite applicable to the description of the circumstances described.

YMMV

" When a woman leads a guy on right up to the point of penetration it's a tough thing to call it rape."

really bizarre...and quite frankly still do.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

I only ask that you give it the most charitable reading you can. I'll not here to try to completely explain what I meant and why I wrote that, but suffice to say it was as part of the argument and not a true reflection of my considered position on matters of consensual sex.

I'll drop this now if there is no objection

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Joliphant, FWIW, I understood what you meant by likening it to rape -- the forcible intrusion upon what one holds nearest and dearest.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

From the way it reads. They say church provided a service and would have to provide that service without regard to orientation.

As I said there is much that isn't being said in the article.

But even Chuck-E-Cheese is allowed the right to refuse service if you don't play by their rules.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Not if those rules entail any discrimination on a protected class or on prohibited grounds.

In Vino Veritas

"Homosexual Marriage" is not a class.

Homosexuals may be a class, but the act of marrige is not a class.

While a case could be made if the church decided to not rent to homosexuals, one cannot use 'discrimination against protected class' regarding this issue as the issue is the marriage ceremony.

The church has full legal right to determine how its land is used, even by a renter.

That the church doesn't want homosexual marriage to take place is well within the realm of property rights in Realityland.

If a homosexual wanted to rent the place for a birthday party for their son and there was a birthday party there the week before and the chruch said "No, we don't rent out to homosexuals." then you'd have a case.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

you would similarly hold that those Muslim taxicab drivers who want to pick and choose who they are willing to service - w