How Credible Are Assurances Of Non-Compulsory Homosexual Weddings By Lds Priesthood?

[USU78]

To say that this post is rational is a lie.

 

Not so.

 

No assurance can be given.

 

We all knew this 15+ pages ago.

 

Yet people keep posting, as though their assurances were worth something.

 

Assurances that awful things will never happen are worthless and, given sufficient context to establish them, lies.

[The Nehor]

Not so.

 

No assurance can be given.

 

We all knew this 15+ pages ago.

 

Yet people keep posting, as though their assurances were worth something.

 

Assurances that awful things will never happen are worthless and, given sufficient context to establish them, lies.

We have the assurance that it is codified in law and established by case law. I even gave you a prophecy about it.

What kind of assurance would satisfy you? You keep demanding assurances and then dismissing them as not enough. Where are your goalposts?

[thesometimesaint]

Sure anything CAN happen given enough time and which religion is involved. IE; The sun "could" rise in west, but don't hold your breath until that happens.

[USU78]

We have the assurance that it is codified in law and established by case law. I even gave you a prophecy about it.

What kind of assurance would satisfy you? You keep demanding assurances and then dismissing them as not enough. Where are your goalposts?

 

I asked a simple question:  How credible are the assurances?

 

When people give assurances, I tell them their assurances are no good and tell them to try again, knowing they cannot possibly give credible assurances.

 

It ain't that complicated.

[The Nehor]

I asked a simple question:  How credible are the assurances?

 

When people give assurances, I tell them their assurances are no good and tell them to try again, knowing they cannot possibly give credible assurances.

 

It ain't that complicated.

So you are playing with people demanding something you have no intention of accepting. Or, more succinctly, you are a jerk.

[Vance]

Sure anything CAN happen given enough time and which religion is involved. IE; The sun "could" rise in west, but don't hold your breath until that happens.

The sun could easily rise in the west TOMORROW!!! All that is needed is the redefinition of terms.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Vance

[USU78]

The sun could easily rise in the west TOMORROW!!! All that is needed is the redefinition of terms.

 

Exactly so!

[USU78]

So you are playing with people demanding something you have no intention of accepting. Or, more succinctly, you are a jerk.

 

I asked a question:  How credible are these assurances?

 

Have you honestly found the assurances credible?

 

Why?

[Daniel2]

An update:

Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model

http://www.goodasyou.org/

by Jeremy Hooper

The Hitching Post, the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for-profit wedding chapel that has been the subject of one of the most spun-up and twisted "news" stories of this week, will be free to deny same-sex couples. That is, if they stick to their new business model (which is not their old business model) of only performing religious weddings:

Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law [boise State Public Radio]

Which is totally fine. In fact, that was the gist of my post from back in May, when I first learned that this business even existed. Religious ceremonies are one thing; however, if you are running a business that sells all kinds of secular services and does not make faith a requirement, then you are a different entity. You can't have it both ways.

The issue now, all across the country, is going to be ensuring that businesses like this are truly fulfilling the requirements of being a religious venue (or "religious corporation"). I suspect many will try to claim they are even while still benefitting from the lucre of the secular world in a way that goes against their business operating agreement. They're not going to be able to just nail up a cross and say, "Welp, we're covered by Jesus." There is going to be a standard—one that deeply committed Christians should insist on even more than civil equality activists.

***

*NOTE: One question I still have is why this business ever came into the news back in May, well before Idaho actually had same-sex marriage. My suspicion, which I cannot prove, is that the anti-LGBT movement put them up to it. I can't understand why the business would have gone to the press with such a preemptive strike unless they were planning this whole campaign that followed almost immediately after Idaho achieved equality. Not only do I suspect (but again, cannot prove and am not claiming to prove) that the Knapps had outside help, but I also suspect that there are many, many, many more business owners across the nation who they anti-LGBT movement is tapping for such purposes.

And more from NPR:

Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

By Jessica Robinson

Originally published on Fri October 24, 2014 12:11 pm

The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, said a for-profit wedding chapel owned by two ministers doesn't have to perform same-sex marriages.

The city has been embroiled in controversy ever since the owners of the Hitching Post sued the city. They say a city anti-discrimination law threatened to force them to marry same-sex couples now that gay marriage is legal in Idaho.

The story lit up conservative and gay-rights blogs. Wedding chapel owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp said they feared jail time or fines if they declined marriage services to a same-sex couple.

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.

But Gridley said after further review, he determined the ordinance doesn’t specify non-profit or for-profit.

“After we've looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation,” Gridley explained.

Court filings show the Hitching Post reorganized earlier this month as a “religious corporation.” In the paperwork, the owners describe their deeply held beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

The Knapps' attorney said the city is about to be tested on its approach. He said the Knapps have been contacted by the police about a complaint filed on Thursday by a same-sex couple who were turned away at the Old West themed chapel.

Leo Morales of the ACLU of Idaho said the exemption makes sense as long as the Hitching Post primarily performs religious ceremonies.

“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It's the religious activity that's being protected."

Filings with the Idaho Secretary of State show the Hitching Post became a limited liability company on September 12. Court documents in the Knapps’ federal lawsuit show they signed a business operating agreement on October 6 that lists the following as the purpose of their LLC:

“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

UPDATE, 10/24/14, 11 a.m.: The group that helped create Coeur d'Alene's anti-discrimination ordinance says the Hitching Post shouldn't have to perform same-sex marriages. The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations says in a letter to the mayor and city council that the Knapps fall under the religious exemption in the law.

Copyright 2014 NWNews. To see more, visit http://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/.

Another win/win triumph showing that gay rights and religious liberty CAN and will peacefully coexist. :-)

Edited October 24, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

The sun could easily rise in the west TOMORROW!!! All that is needed is the redefinition of terms.

 

Sure, but redefining terms is what got the Mulekites into trouble.

[california boy]

I asked a question:  How credible are these assurances?

 

Have you honestly found the assurances credible?

 

Why?

 

 

I asked a question:  How credible are these assurances?

 

Have you honestly found the assurances credible?

 

Why?

 

Since no assurance is possible for you to be satisfied, this thread has basincally been turned into trolling by you.  Perhaps that was your intent all along and you were never interested in discussing the OP,  Silly us, we thought you wanted to discuss this topic, not troll it.  Shame on you.  This is not what this discussion board is designed for. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure, but redefining terms is what got the Mulekites into trouble.

And it will do the same for us. As you will no doubt, see in the future.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The sun could easily rise in the west TOMORROW!!! All that is needed is the redefinition of terms.

And thus we see the silly game that has been pulled over most of our eyes in the name of equality.

[thesometimesaint]

And it will do the same for us. As you will no doubt, see in the future.

 

Don't hold your breath.

[The Nehor]

I asked a question:  How credible are these assurances?

 

Have you honestly found the assurances credible?

 

Why?

Yes I do. I find the legal arguments convincing because I believe they will fail around the time the government falls in which case the point will be moot.

I believe the prophecy I gave because I gave it.

[JLHPROF]

I asked a question:  How credible are these assurances?

 

Have you honestly found the assurances credible?

 

Why?

 

If we want to know how far the government and society are willing to go towards "forcing" the Church to perform SSM, we only have to look at the last time the Church tried to take a stand on marriage that society and government didn't agree with.

 

Honestly, if you think the "laws" will stop this from happening all they have to do is pass a new law.  There was this little law called the Edmunds-Tucker act that interfered with the Church's ability to perform marriages as it saw fit.  It almost cost the Church its property, temples, its very existence.

 

It is the height of foolishness to believe that IF they want to and IF society wants them too that the government won't pass new laws requiring churches to perform SSM....at which point we will probably see the proclamation on family replaced with Official Declaration #3.

[Bob Crockett]

I asked a simple question:  How credible are the assurances?

 

When people give assurances, I tell them their assurances are no good and tell them to try again, knowing they cannot possibly give credible assurances.

 

It ain't that complicated.

If the assurances were not "credible," by now you would have pointed us to an example where a pastor was forced to marry somebody against his will in some other civil rights context -- mixed race marriage; couples previously living in sin, etc.

Right now, the law is essentially that government cannot compel a pastor to take some ecclesiastical step. Marriage is a religious sacrament (which also happens to be a government license).

I don't get the baiting.

You haven't really offered some sort of alternative we ought to consider.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

Yes I do. I find the legal arguments convincing because I believe they will fail around the time the government falls in which case the point will be moot.

I believe the prophecy I gave because I gave it.

 

So . . . "on accounta cuz" is your assurance that we should rely upon.

 

Got it.

[USU78]

Since no assurance is possible for you to be satisfied, this thread has basincally been turned into trolling by you.  Perhaps that was your intent all along and you were never interested in discussing the OP,  Silly us, we thought you wanted to discuss this topic, not troll it.  Shame on you.  This is not what this discussion board is designed for. 

 

You didn't have to bite, cb.

 

I, like others, appreciate your expression that, notwithstanding your uncritical and sweeping support of antidiscrimation laws, you would never support their use to compel religions to perform SSMs.

 

I just don't believe it.

 

And that is where I and others part company.

 

They are willing to credit your, what appear to you and them to be, good intentions.

 

But when the mob demands action to put an end to the horror that is Mormon intransigence on the issue of Temple sealings for homosexuals [to each other], I am reasonably certain where you would come down.  You would never stand with us against the mob.

 

I, on the other hand, as I have done at a few points in my life, would stand with you in the face of threats of disenfranchisement and physical harm.  And I'd give a decent accounting for myself, despite my age and the state of my hairline.

 

Will you stand with me at the doors of the ward house or stake center or Temple when the federal marshalls come?

 

I don't ask for an answer, I ask you to think about the question.

[The Nehor]

So . . . "on accounta cuz" is your assurance that we should rely upon.

 

Got it.

Your argument is that because it is possible we should spend time worrying about it despite there being no evidence it is going to happen.

I am not conceding that your caricature of my point is accurate but I do think your caricature of my argument is more convincing then your silliness. And yeah, you are basically trolling.....and not in a good way.

[california boy]

You didn't have to bite, cb.

 

I, like others, appreciate your expression that, notwithstanding your uncritical and sweeping support of antidiscrimation laws, you would never support their use to compel religions to perform SSMs.

 

I just don't believe it.

 

And that is where I and others part company.

 

They are willing to credit your, what appear to you and them to be, good intentions.

 

But when the mob demands action to put an end to the horror that is Mormon intransigence on the issue of Temple sealings for homosexuals [to each other], I am reasonably certain where you would come down.  You would never stand with us against the mob.

 

I, on the other hand, as I have done at a few points in my life, would stand with you in the face of threats of disenfranchisement and physical harm.  And I'd give a decent accounting for myself, despite my age and the state of my hairline.

 

Will you stand with me at the doors of the ward house or stake center or Temple when the federal marshalls come?

 

I don't ask for an answer, I ask you to think about the question.

 

There is a big difference to me between a for profit business and the desire for the federal government to stop the discrimination that was going on far to long in this country and a religion.  

 

Yes, you can count on me to be right there shoulder to shoulder with you if the federal marshals ever attempt to take over any temple or ward building.  I strongly believe in following the constitution and the free exercise of religion is as clearly spelled out as the equal protection clause.

 

You obviously want some mystical reassurance that seems impossible to fulfill.  I evidently can not provide what you are looking for, especially since even you have no idea what that reassurance would be.  But I can assure you that I would fight for your constitutional rights with as much vigor as I have fought other's constitutional rights.  While you didn't ask for an answer, I am still giving you one.

 

Defending your civil rights is very consistent with my defending the civil rights of gays.  It is that simple.  

Edited October 24, 2014 by california boy

[The Nehor]

You didn't have to bite, cb.

 

I, like others, appreciate your expression that, notwithstanding your uncritical and sweeping support of antidiscrimation laws, you would never support their use to compel religions to perform SSMs.

 

I just don't believe it.

 

And that is where I and others part company.

 

They are willing to credit your, what appear to you and them to be, good intentions.

 

But when the mob demands action to put an end to the horror that is Mormon intransigence on the issue of Temple sealings for homosexuals [to each other], I am reasonably certain where you would come down.  You would never stand with us against the mob.

 

I, on the other hand, as I have done at a few points in my life, would stand with you in the face of threats of disenfranchisement and physical harm.  And I'd give a decent accounting for myself, despite my age and the state of my hairline.

 

Will you stand with me at the doors of the ward house or stake center or Temple when the federal marshalls come?

 

I don't ask for an answer, I ask you to think about the question.

Don't beat your chest so hard. You might bruise it.

This is why I find this inane issue so interesting. There is no evidence it is going to happen but the fantasy that it might enables people to cast themselves as imaginary heroes. I suspect this is why people cling to the fantasy against all reason.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I suspect this is why people cling to the fantasy against all reason.

Accept there is a very valid reason. It happened because of the redefinition of a word. Nothing can stop this from happening in the future.

 

I see you used big words like fantasy.

[Daniel2]

If we want to know how far the government and society are willing to go towards "forcing" the Church to perform SSM, we only have to look at the last time the Church tried to take a stand on marriage that society and government didn't agree with.

Honestly, if you think the "laws" will stop this from happening all they have to do is pass a new law. There was this little law called the Edmunds-Tucker act that interfered with the Church's ability to perform marriages as it saw fit. It almost cost the Church its property, temples, its very existence.

It is the height of foolishness to believe that IF they want to and IF society wants them too that the government won't pass new laws requiring churches to perform SSM....at which point we will probably see the proclamation on family replaced with Official Declaration #3.

FORBIDDING a type of marriage vs. FORCING a type of marriage are two VERY different things.

The Hitching Post, as a religious corporation, has been exonerated.

Nothing else to see here but hyperbole.

[The Nehor]

Accept there is a very valid reason. It happened because of the redefinition of a word. Nothing can stop this from happening in the future.

 

I see you used big words like fantasy.

Words are redefined all the time. I am curious which word being redefined you think will compel clergy to perform marriages.

Fantasy is not a particularly big word you antidisestablishmentarianist.