Op Ed Piece By The Florist

[Darth Executor]

Who has time for weddings? We're busy planning the fall of civilisation and the coming persecution of Christians. Busy, busy.

You really should be measuring out your neckties instead.

[pancreasman]

You really should be measuring out your neckties instead.

It's good that my comment and yours are equally fanciful and ridiculous. Makes me feel like we're on the same team.

[Starlight]

We're busy planning the fall of civilisation and the coming persecution of Christians. Busy, busy.

Reminds me of a couple of articles I saw today:

GOP congresswoman warns of Christian persecution in America — but can’t name any examples
She's apparently convinced Christians are being persecuted, she's just not quite sure how.

Anti-gay activist gives false testimony on Texas anti-gay bill
An anti-gay activist testifying in support of Cow Poke's Texas bill claimed that in states where same-sex marriage was legal, gay couples were forcing ministers who objected to their marriages to conduct the ceremonies. When later challenged on this she admitted that she knew of no instances of this actually happening but believed it was the type of thing she thought that gay people might do in future.

[pancreasman]

Reminds me of a couple of articles I saw today:

GOP congresswoman warns of Christian persecution in America — but can’t name any examples

Also, this one:
Anti-gay activist gives false testimony on Texas anti-gay bill
An anti-gay activist testifying in support of Cow Poke's Texas bill claimed that in states where same-sex marriage was legal, gay couples were forcing ministers who objected to their marriages to conduct the ceremonies. When later challenged on this she admitted that she knew of no instances of this actually happening but believed it was the type of thing she though that gay people might do in future.

Stupid knows no race, creed or colour.

[Starlight]

Stupid knows no race, creed or colour.

I agree that in any large enough group you will always be able to find some stupid people. But equally obviously there can be systemic issues within a social group that cause it to receive less or worse education, or encourage people to hold inaccurate beliefs, or foster a social climate unfavorable to intelligent dialogue.

[Leonhard]

So while I am not in favor of forcing clergy to conduct a marriage of which they disapprove, I am in favor of requiring that Churches who routinely hire out their premises to the public be required to not discriminate. If the church building is used to conduct heterosexual weddings, then it should be required to be available for use for conducting same-sex weddings. But requiring the couple to provide their own marriage celebrant seems reasonable.

What if the building is doing so only as a religious service for its members?

[Starlight]

What if the building is doing so only as a religious service for its members?

It's fine for them to restrict marriage services to church-members only, and opt to not rent out their building to the general public. That's a perfectly reasonable criteria for discrimination. I know of a few churches that choose this - they don't simply allow any old heterosexual wedding to be held in their church, it has to actually be a member of the congregation getting married. Those churches are not interested in being in the business of hiring out their church or halls to the general public, but will allow their premises to be used by members where necessary.

The issue would then arise if the church member getting married happens to be gay. In that case, I would say that the church should have to host the wedding if asked. To do otherwise would be discriminatory. Churches could, of course, opt for a policy of not allowing any weddings to be performed in their churches, if they objected to the theoretical possibility of ever having their building used for a gay wedding.

[Cow Poke]

One additional issue I would point out is that most churches tend to hire-out their premises or church hall to community groups who want to use it.

I don't think this is true. Especially regarding churches who would be pro traditional marriage.

Gay couples trying to find a venue for their wedding ceremony can often struggle because churches tend to be the main source of hire-able venue that has the capacity and layout appropriate to hold a wedding ceremony (non-Church wedding venues tend to be very expensive to hire), and a lot of countries allow the churches to veto use of their premises for conducting same-sex marriages.

If they want to get married in a Church, why not the Church where they're members? Oh, yeah -- the only time when want to turn to the Church is when they want to use it for their own purposes, eh?

So while I am not in favor of forcing clergy to conduct a marriage of which they disapprove, I am in favor of requiring that Churches who routinely hire out their premises to the public be required to not discriminate.

Which is EXACTLY why most Churhes are reevaluating their building use policies.

If the church building is used to conduct heterosexual weddings, then it should be required to be available for use for conducting same-sex weddings. But requiring the couple to provide their own marriage celebrant seems reasonable.

Again, why don't they just use the Church where they're members?

[Cow Poke]

Ban clergy from officiating,

That's just an utterly ignorant statement. You really don't understand this issue at all.

Show me ANY pro traditional marriage entity that wants to ban clergy from officiating. That's exactly what we're fighting AGAINST --- the curtailing of our religious liberties, either forcing us to do something, or keeping us from doing something that violates our sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

The issue would then arise if the church member getting married happens to be gay. In that case, I would say that the church should have to host the wedding if asked. To do otherwise would be discriminatory. Churches could, of course, opt for a policy of not allowing any weddings to be performed in their churches, if they objected to the theoretical possibility of ever having their building used for a gay wedding.

So, a homosexual or lesbian could force their own church to violate their own church's religious liberties? And the remedy is to punish all other members by prohibiting ALL marriages? Perhaps you're unaware that there are lots of Churches which allow non-traditional weddings.

Better - the Church could (and should) have in their bylaws that the definition of marriage is one man and one woman (if, indeed, that's what they believe).

[firstfloor]

[Sparko]

Kinda like you condemning religion, you mean?



There goes another irony meter factory up in smoke.

[Sparko]

When later challenged on this she admitted that she knew of no instances of this actually happening but believed it was the type of thing she thought that gay people might do in future.

Considering your post and other things I have read, saying things like Churches should be forced to rent out space for same-sex weddings, it seems entirely logical that the next step would be to force pastors to perform same-sex weddings. People like you don't give a crap about other people's rights, or beliefs. It is all about accommodating you and your beliefs.

To people like you starlight, freedom of speech just means that you have it and others are free to agree with you or you will do everything in your power to shut them up and make them agree with your views. You are a fascist, disguised as a liberal.

[Starlight]

If they want to get married in a Church, why not the Church where they're members? Oh, yeah -- the only time when want to turn to the Church is when they want to use it for their own purposes, eh?

Churches are a traditional wedding venue, so a lot of people like using them for weddings, regardless of how religious they are. Quite a lot of people are nominal Christians who attend Church at Christmas and Easter and who take it for granted that they will get married in a church and have their funeral in a church. Also churches are usually pretty cheap to hire and alternative venues are often ten times more expensive. Also, not all types of churches have 'members' in any well-defined sense.

My sister is getting (heterosexually) married in a few months. She is no longer religious, but had to make a decision between getting married in the church she grew up attending for ~20 years, which my parents still attend regularly, for a negligible financial cost, versus hiring a non-church venue for thousands of dollars.

Again, why don't they just use the Church where they're members?

Exactly. If a gay person is a member of a church that performs any kind of weddings, they should be able to get married in that church. I think refusing them would be discriminatory and should be prohibited by law.

Show me ANY pro traditional marriage entity that wants to ban clergy from officiating.

In my country, all major Christian denominations (including Catholic, Anglican and Baptist denominations), have all banned their respective clergy from officiating same-sex marriages. I think you misinterpreted my words as implying that the government banned such participation - that is not what I was saying (although the Church of England in the UK is an example of the government banning such participation - the church there is state-controlled and the government issued the ban at the direct request of the church), I was saying that same-sex marriage opponents have encouraged churches to ban their clergy from officiating same sex marriages. That has largely been a very successful campaign, and here in NZ, nearly all Christian ministers are banned by their own denominations from conducting same-sex weddings.

[Starlight]

What is the difference between refusing to sell and arrange flowers and carrying a poster emblazoned with a colourful sign declaring “God Hates Fags”? Except for the intensity of the hatred they are much the same thing. If you condemn one you ought to condemn the other.

What's written on a sign is a "free speech" issue. Americans are obsessed with their "first amendment rights", so you'd never get a law banning hate-speech to stand up in court in the US. (~rolls eyes in the general direction of the US's absurd constitution, and the currently dominant ridiculously excessive interpretation of the first amendment free-speech rights~) I personally support the idea of hate-speech laws, and many countries in Europe have adopted them.