Iowa Mennonites sue Civil Rights comm. over their religion vs homosexual mandate

It's always interesting when civil rights crash headlong into religious rights. The Supreme Court needs to establish some kind of practical yardstick (which right is being violated worse, or something of that sort) and stick to it in a consistent manner, or they will see a lot more of these sorts of cases.

 

Jeff, I realize that you have chosen to deny God. That is your right. As a matter of fact, God designed things so that you could have that right. He created man so that he can have free will. Without free will God's plan would not work. As such, everyman is free to choose to believe or deny God. I am not here to change your mind on that fact. Nor am I here to judge you for your choice. God will judge you when the time come for him to do so. But that shouldn't bother you since you have chosen to deny God. In your mind, something that does not exist can not judge you. It is good that we live in a free society that supports the rights of each individual's free will. But there is a line that you can not cross. It is when you start stripping the rights of believers in favor of those that intentionally break the laws of God. To say that this couple does not have the right to practice their religion in their business is the same to telling a gay couple that they do not have the right to be gay in a business. Believing in God means that you follow certain rules. These are called Commandments and Covenants. Every religion no matter if it is Christian, Judaism, Islam or even Scientology have these rules to follow. You must incorporate these rules into every facet of their life. To say that a business owner may not conduct his business in accordance with his/her religion is that same as telling a gay couple, "Leave your gayness at the door." It is just as discriminatory. The couple that runs the business are In fact Christians. As such they are told that gay sex in an abomination before God. That means that they can not participate in gay sex, but it also means that they can not do anything that would facilitate others in having gay sex. Allowing marriages to be conducted within their business would be doing just that. So, by supporting the actions of forcing this couple to allow gay marriages within their business is in fact saying that the rights of gays to have gay marriages trumps the rights of this couple to practice their religion. As I have pointed out numerous times, the right to practice ones religion is a specific right under the US Constitution, but the right to have a gay marriage is not specified in the Constitution. It arguably can be deferred from other rights, but the right to freely practice a religion is not deferred. It is specifically stated. To tell this couple that they have to allow gay marriages to be preformed in their business is a specific violation of their Constitutional rights.

That is the whole point. The owners of the business is not violating the gay couple's rights, because the gay couple is free to get married somewhere else. To say that the business owner must allow gay marriages in their business is a violation of their Constitutional rights. The Constitution does not limit the right to practice ones religion to one day a week, or only when in church.

 

Do you have any information that says that these ceremonies are being preformed by a Judge, Magistrate or Associate Judge serving in the Supreme Court, Appeals court or District court? If not then the ceremony must be preformed by an individual ordained or designated as a leader of an religious faith. Those are the only ones allowed to preform marriages in the state of Iowa. Since, judges generally preform marriages in a specific venue for civil marriages, then only an ordained religious leader can preform the marriages in this couples business. That makes it a religious ceremony.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/iowa/marriage_licenses/performing_weddings.pdf

 

I understand also rkhames that you do believe in God, and I believe that you sincerely do have this belief- and I don't judge you for your beliefs. Your belief in God doesn't harm me, nor does it affect me.

But if you have a corner grocery store, and your religion said that you should not have any dealings with non-Christians, so you refused to sell me milk because I was not a Christian, then it would affect me.

This is the crux of the lawsuit that this couple is bringing- I understand that you believe that this is a matter of their religious freedom, but from my point of view, refusal of service to someone because of the persons race, ethnicity, religion- or sexual preference is wrong- regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owners. There are numerous court cases where the courts have determined that religious freedom is not an absolute pass on all laws- a Rastafarian is exempt from laws against smoking pot simply because his religion includes the use of pot.

Interesting- this couple never says in their law suit that they consider gay sex an abomination before God. Nor is that one of the reasons that they said that they refused to allow this marriage to take place there. I think you are assuming that your interpretation of the 'word of God' is the same as theirs.

 

So the angry white guys keep saying- over and over. Meanwhile America drives on.

 

"There is so much anti white, anti Christian, anti male brainwashing in our society that the lib victims of that propaganda just take it for granted."

Please take a few brief moments to at least contemplate what the poster offered.

On the other hand perhaps you'd care to offer your support to barrys new broad reaching social program....

​

 

Any ordained religious leader could of course refuse to perform any ceremony which doesn't conform to that religions rules.
And of course any religious space- church, synagogue, mosque- can refuse to perform any ceremony which doesn't conform to that religions rules.

That is why my wife and I could not get married by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church.

But this is a private business which rents out its facility for events- including marriages. It is not a religious facility or religious entity.

- - - Updated - - -

I took as long as what the poster offered deserved.

 

that is not the role. That then brings subjectivity because it would change depending on the beliefs of the justices. What we are starting to see is placing a sexual choice ahead of ones religion. If you are going to force the belief of one upon another then you usurp the liberties and create an oppressed group. One should not be forced to patronize an establishment any more than one should be forced to forsake their religious beliefs. We are not talking about life or death services

 

First of all, there is no passage in the Bible that says that Christians are forbidden from doing business with non-Christians, but that is not the nature of this case. You seem to miss a very important component of this case. Yes a corner store would be wrong if they refused to sell milk to someone based on their race, religion, national origin or their sexual preference. But the customer can not sue because the store does not carry the brand that they want. This case would be the same if the customer sued a Chinese restaurant for not serving Pizza, or a Jewish Deli for refusing to serve non-kosher meats. This business owner caters to Christian weddings. It is the brand that they are offering. Could you sue a business because that sell Coke instead of Pepsi, or would you just go to a place were they sell Pepsi. This is no different. If you want to have a Christian wedding in accordance with the Commandments and Covenants of the bible, you are welcome to go to this business. But if you want to have a wedding that is not in accordance with the teachings of the Bible, then you go somewhere else. As I pointed out before, it is the Constitutional right of a business owner to conduct his business in accordance with his religion. To force him/her to do otherwise is a violation of those rights. As the lawsuit states, the business owner does not refuse to serve gays at their Lunch Bristow. Nor would they refuse to sell them a painting from their gallery. They also state that they have hired openly gay employees. They only refuse gays one service. A service that is offered in other venues within the town. So, their actions does not infringe on the gay couples Constitutional rights.

This is not the first time we have conversed on the subject of Gay rights vs Religious Freedom. In the past I have quoted the bible. Including passages that stated the God called Gay sex an abomination. You may question the translation, but not the interpretation. I actually know several Mennonites. We have a very large community here in Virginia. Everyone of them that I know used that same translation of the Bible that I read, That is the King James version. So, as long as Leviticus 18:22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankinde, as with womankinde: it is abomination,", you can assume that this couple believes that. BTW, the every translation of the bible that I can find reads the same way. Except the World English Bible that is. If states, "'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable." So, as I have said this is not a matter of interpretation.

 

So, you believe that only priest or minister that is entitled to practice their religion 24/7, but no one else has that right? Can you show me where in the First Amendment where it says that the free practice of ones religion is limited to certain days of the week, or is limited to just when you are in church? Since the Constitution does not place those restrictions the government can not force a business owner from conducting his business in accordance with his faith. You can no more force this business owner to allow gay marriages then you could force a Jewish Deli to serve non-kosher meats.

 

I never said that, nor did I imply that.

 

That is a complete dodge- are you unaware that you completely ignored my point when you went off on your tangent

Interesting- this couple never says in their law suit that they consider gay sex an abomination before God. Nor is that one of the reasons that they said that they refused to allow this marriage to take place there. I think you are assuming that your interpretation of the 'word of God' is the same as theirs.

The couple that is sueing never makes the claims you are making. You are the one making those claims- not them.

And do you really want to discuss Leviticus?

.

 

Actually, you did. You claimed that a business owner does not have the right to practice his religion. You stated that a religious leader can refuse to preform a ceremony, but a business owner can not refuse to allow a ceremony to be conducted in their place of business. So, you are saying that only a religious (ie, Priests and Ministers) are entitled to practice their religion.

 

This is not a dodge. It is a specific statement of facts. The lawsuit claims that their refusal to allow same-sex marriages is based on their religious faith. They did state that their church defined marriage as a religious covenant between a man and a woman. But they did not limit their faith to that one statement. Many people have claimed that their personnel predigests are covered within the pages of the bible. Yet most can not find passages where the predigests are stated. In the case of this couple, their statement of faith is clearly defined in the bible. It does not matter what you believe, or what I believe. It only matters what the couple believes, and that the belief can be supported within the pages of the bible. Thereby, the Constitution gives them the right to that belief. As I have pointed out, that belief is not limited to certain days of the week. or only when in church. There is no provision that states that a business owner may not conduct his business in accordance with his religion.

 

The religious are already given preferential treatment..

 

Well then you should be able to quote me if I made that claim.

Show me.

 

Okay now we are getting somewhere. Yes, they did say based upon their faith, and specifically mentioned that their religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman eternal(I believe that was their term).

This is what they claimed- not that homosexuality was an abomination before God- those were your words.

Well we will see what the court says. I understand what your belief is, but as I have pointed out- religious beliefs are not absolute when it comes to running a business.

It is well established that a business cannot refuse to serve an African American because of his color. According to your theory, a business could do so if their business felt that serving a black man was a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs. The same applies for serving a Jew.

I believe the same applies to a homosexual.

 

I didn't realize laser tag was an actual person or something that a person can't control...

You're right, it's not a race of species, but let's think about this. Being gay isn't something you can control, it's genetic. To discriminate based on something you can't control doesn't really make much sense now does it?

 

By the way what is a "personal predigest" that you keep referring to?

 

that is a bald face lie to announce it as if it's fact. My having heterosexual sex is my choice; prove otherwise. Medicine has no test to support your claim.

I understand that to state it as being genetic might help you through the day but it's just sex, that's it. Sleeping with women does not make me a better person than you because you sleep with men and vice versa. There are plenty of despicable homosexual and heterosexual people and there are plenty of awesome ones as well. How we engage in sex has no bearing on the type of people we are but, to call it genetic is an untruth

- - - Updated - - -

in off road racing they have vehicles called "pre runners" which run the course before the actual race

In reading, you would read a pre-digest before graduating to "Readers Digest"

 

There are already limits on religious behavior in America that people agree with. We don't approve of polygamy or the arranged marriages of twelve year olds or failing to educate to a certain standard if the religious group encourages home schooling or private schooling (none of which are life or death issues). You are being naive in your view of the historical limits on religious freedom in this country; there were places not that long ago where you couldn't have negro and non-negro in the same church congregation, for instance.